1 2026:CGHC:8614 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1780 of 2026 1 - D.R. Baghmare S/o Shri Gopichand Baghmare Aged About 56 Years R/o V.V. Colony Y Bihar Colony, Street No. 5, Mowa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar, Chhattisgarh Cooperative Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Block B, 2nd And 3rd Floor, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Bank Limited Through Managing Director, Sahkar Bhawan, Plot No. 74, Sector-24, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director (Inquiry Officer) Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Bank Limited Sahkar Bhawan, Plot No. 74, Sector 24, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate along with Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 17/02 /2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pass an order strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India in respect of the revocation of the suspension of petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief’s in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 08.11.2024 on the allegation of financial irregularity. Petitioner was served with the charge-memo for initiating departmental enquiry proceedings. However, till date the enquiry proceedings have not been started and the petitioner is under suspension since last about more than 01 year and therefore, direction be issued to the respondent authorities to revoke the order of suspension of the petitioner. He also contended that according to the District Cooperative Central Bank Employee Service Rules, the suspension of an employee of the Cooperative Bank would not exceed to 06 months normally, however, it can be extended by the order of competent authority for further period of 06 months and therefore, in the facts of the case, where petitioner has completed more than 01 years of suspension period, he is entitled for the reinstatement after revocation of the suspension order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 2 & 3 opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that under the same rules, which is referred by the counsel for petitioner, there is specific mention that the employee against whom, criminal case is registered and pending can be suspended till the conclusion of criminal case. As of now, the criminal case registered against the petitioner is pending consideration and therefore, the petitioner is having no case in his favour. 3 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the provision under Rule 60 (8) of the District Cooperative Central Bank Employee Service Rules, it is specifically mentioned that the suspension can be upto conclusion of the criminal case and therefore, under the provision, it is not a mandatory provision that the employee against whom criminal case is pending consideration has to be kept under suspension till criminal case is concluded, 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner while working on the post of Branch Manager was put under suspension on 08.11.2024 alleging some financial irregularities committed by him. From the date of suspension, more than 01 year has already been lapsed. District Cooperative Central Bank Employee Service Rules provides that normally, an employee of the Cooperative Bank can be suspended for a period of 06 months and it can be extended for a further period of 06 months. The employee against whom criminal case is registered, the period of his suspension could be till conclusion of the criminal case. The provision does not specifically provides that an employee under whom, criminal case is registered has to be kept under suspension till conclusion of the trial. In above facts of the case, it is for the employer to review the order of suspension of the petitioner. 7. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage, permitting the petitioner to submit representation before the concerned authority and if such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, concerned authority shall consider and take decision on the representation to be submitted by the petitioner on its own merits in accordance with law, expeditiously, 4 preferably within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of representation keeping in mind the relevant rules. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY