1 2025:CGHC:8533 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1295 of 2025 1 - Ram Manorath Rai S/o Shri Dewmuni Rai Aged About 52 Years R/o Sawer, Nawapara, Bande Kanker, District - North Baster, Kanker (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Joint Director, Office Of Joint Director, Education Divisional - Baster, Jagdalpur, District - Baster At Jagdalpur (C.G.). 3 - District Education Officer, Kanker, District - North Baster, Kanker (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Rishab Bisen, Panel Lawyer. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19/02/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash order of suspension dated 06.03.2023 Annexure P-1 passed by the respondent no.2. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction to the respondent No.-2 to consider case of the petitioner and take decision on letter dated 27.08.2024 & 13.11.2024, within stipulated period.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is challenging order of suspension dated 06.03.2023, issued by the respondent No.-2, whereby he has suspended to the petitioner from service. The petitioner was working as Head Master at Govt. Primary School P. V. 79, Block-Koylibeda, District-North Baster, Kanker, a criminal case registered against him as Crime No. 09/2023 under Section 354 of I.P.C. and under Sections 8,12 of POCSO Act, the final report has been filed by the concerned officer before concerned Court on 22.03.2023, due to criminal case petitioner arrested on 04.03.2023 and by the order dated 06.03.2023 respondent No.-2 suspended him and fixed head office of Office 3 of Block Education Officer, Koylibeda, District-North Baster, Kanker. The petitioner moved an application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C before concerned Court for grant of bail, his application was allowed on 06.04.2023, by Additional District and Session Judge, Bhanupratappur and petitioner released on bail. On 13.08.2024, the petitioner moved an application before respondent No.-2 for revocation of suspension, through office of respondent No.-3, his application duly forwarded by the respondent No.-3 to respondent No.-2 on 27.08.2024, but no action has been taken by the respondent No. 2, again on 13.11.2024 remainder letter forwarded to the respondent No.-2, but till date no action has been taken by the respondent No.-2, the suspension has not been revoked by respondent No.-2 nor decide an application of the petitioner. The petitioner is under suspension since 06.03.2023, charge-sheet has not been issued by the respondent No.-2 nor suspension period has been extended by the authority, therefore, case of the petitioner is required consideration for revocation of order of suspension. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been suspended since 06.03.2023, till date, charge-sheet has not been issued against him and the period of suspension has not been extended after the completion of 90 days from the issuance order of suspension, therefore, petitioner is entitled for revocation 4 of suspension. He further submits that the petitioner is under suspension more then 21 months, on this ground alone order of suspension liable to be revocation. He further submits that the impugned order of the respondent No. 2 is illegal, bad and is malafide, therefore, order of suspension is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submission. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the submissions made by the parties, the petitioner is directed to file a representation raising all his grievances before the respondent authorities within a period of 30 days in accordance with law and the concerned authorities are directed to decide the same within further period of 30 days from the receipt of representation. 7. With this observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat