1 2026:CGHC:6889 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 404 of 2026 1. Sanjay Kumar Rathore S/o Late Shri Chhotelal Rathore Aged About 43 Years Headmaster (Primary School) At Government Primary School, Dumarmuda Cluster Amaldiha, Block Podi Uproda, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director Public Instruction Department, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. The District Education Officer District Korba, Chhattisgarh 5. Block Education Officer Block Podi Uproda, District Korba (CG) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 06/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.02.07 17:12:11 +0530 2 “I) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ or writs for quashing / set aside the order dated 12.09.25 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent no.3, Joint Director, Education Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) ii) Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner, who is holding post of Head Master in Primary School Dumarguda, is issued an order of suspension on 12.9.2025. This order is issued by the Joint Director, Education Division, Bilaspur who is not the authority competent to issue such an order. He contended that appointing authority of petitioner is the District Education Officer and as such, order of suspension could have been issued by the District Education Officer if any exigency arises to suspend the petitioner. Hence, the order of suspension passed by the Joint Director is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. He next contended that in the order of suspension there is no mention that any inquiry is to be conducted against petitioner and therefore also petitioner could not have been suspended under Rule 9 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules of 1966’). In support of his submission, he places reliance on the order dated 10.8.2015 passed in WPS 3 No.2804/2015 (Ashok Kumar Chandrakar vs State of CG & ors). 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that it is not in dispute that appointing authority of petitioner is the District Education Officer. However, following the provisions under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1966, the State Government has issued a circular dated 13.11.2019 determining rights and liabilities of the Joint Director and as per Clause-9 of this Circular, the Joint Director has the authority to pass suspension order against the government employees of whom he is appointing authority and subordinate employees belong to Class III and IV cadre. Hence, the order passed by the Joint Director is within jurisdiction pursuant to the order passed by the State Government. 4. She next contended that petitioner though filed writ petition on 12.1.2026, however, suppressed the material fact that charge sheet was issued to petitioner on 15.10.2025. She also contended that decision relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner is on different facts. In that case, the Collector has passed an order against the employee of School Education Department and in such a situation, this Court has made observation in the order passed in case of Ashok Kumar Chandrakar (supra). She submits that if petitioner is 4 aggrieved with the order of suspension, he is having remedy of filing appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1966 and for this reason also, writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents enclosed along with writ petition. 6. Main contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that order of suspension passed by the Joint Director is without jurisdiction and any authority of law. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1966 provides for suspension. Relevant portion of Rule 9 is extracted below for ready reference:- “9.1.The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general of special order, may place a Government Servant under suspension- (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry of trial:” 7. Perusal of aforementioned extracted provision would show that though the authority to suspend an employee is mentioned to be appointing authority but it also grants power to the authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or special order. 5 8. Learned counsel for petitioner has made an attempt to demonstrate that according to Chhattisgarh School Shiksha Sewa (Shaikshik Evam Prashashnik Sanwarg) Bharti Tatha Padounnati Niyam, 2019 the appointing authority for Headmaster, Primary School, is the District Education Officer. It is not in dispute that under the Rules of 2019 the appointment authority is District Education Officer for the Headmaster, Primary School, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, consideration is whether the Joint Director Education Division, who had issued an order of suspension, is having any authority under the law to pass such an order. In the facts of case, where the State Government had issued a circular granting powers to the Divisional Joint Director, as mentioned therein, issued in the name of His Excellency the Governor, then under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of 1966, the Joint Director is an authority empowered by the State Government to pass order of suspension with respect to government servants of whom he is appointing authority and subordinate employees of Class-III & IV cadre. 9. In view of the above, the order passed in case of Ashok Kumar Chandrakar (supra), which is relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner, is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the order of suspension against the Block Education Officer is 6 passed by the Collector, who was not delegated with the powers by any order of the State Government nor he was having any authority under the rules governing services of Block Education Officer. 10. Next submission made by learned counsel for petitioner is that in the charge sheet it is not mentioned that departmental inquiry is also contemplated against petitioner and therefore, suspension order is bad in law. In the opinion of this Court, this ground is not available to petitioner when writ petition is filed after issuance of charge memo to petitioner, which petitioner in this writ petition has not pleaded for the reasons best known to him. 11. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of suspension passed by the Joint Director, Education Division, Bilaspur. Writ petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-