-1- 2026:CGHC:1619 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 226 of 2026 Geetanjali Chaouhan W/o Bulaki Lal Aged About 40 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade- Iii In The Court Of Judicial Magistrate First Class Junior, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Principal District And Sessions Judge Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. CJK Rao, Advocate For State : Ms. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 12/01/2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, case is heard finally. 2. Grievance raised in this petition is that after issuance of order of suspension dated 28.07.2025 and completion of period of 90 days, respondent has not reviewed or revoked the order of suspension. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner while working on the post of Assistant Grade-III (Deposition Writer) and posted in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Gharghoda, was put under suspension under Rule 9 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 vide order dated Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.01.13 14:36:10 +0530 -2- 28.07.2025. After issuance of order of suspension, more than 90 days have been elapsed and as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the authorities are required to review the order of suspension after lapse of 90 days from the date of issuance of order of suspension. Respondent No.3 has not reviewed the order of suspension of petitioner and has not passed any order in this regard extending the period of suspension. He placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India, through its Secretary & Another, reported (2015) 7 SCC 291 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 9 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 6. From the documents, it is appearing that petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 28.07.2025. As of now, petitioner completed more than 90 days of period of suspension i.e. more than 5 months. As per submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent thereafter have not passed any order reviewing the order of suspension. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) has considered the issue of keeping a Govt. servant under suspension beyond period of 90 days and observed that the Govt. servant cannot be kept under suspension for inordinate period. -3- Relevant portion of decision is extracted below for ready reference:- “20. It will be useful to recall that prior to 1973 an accused could be detained for continuous and consecutive periods of 15 days, albeit, after judicial scrutiny and supervision. The Cr.P.C. of 1973 contains a new proviso which has the effect of circumscribing the power of the Magistrate to authorise detention of an accused person beyond period of 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and beyond a period of 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. Drawing support from the observations contained of the Division Bench in Raghubir Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1986 (4) SCC 481, and more so of the Constitution Bench in Antulay, we are spurred to extrapolate the quintessence of the proviso of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 to moderate Suspension Orders in cases of departmental/disciplinary inquiries also. It seems to us that if Parliament considered it necessary that a person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a memorandum of Charges/ Chargesheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is true that the 4 proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal. -4- 21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.” 8. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar -5- Choudhary (supra), the date of order of suspension i.e. 28.07.2025 instead of keeping this writ petition pending seeking reply from respondents, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit fresh representation before respondent. In the event petitioner submits representation, same shall be considered in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of representation keeping in mind the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen