1 2026:CGHC:23347 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4162 of 2026 M.K. Khare S/o Shri Dev Singh Khare Aged About 50 Years R/o G-2/1, R.E.S. Colony, Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Secretary Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 15/05/2026 1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:- “i. To kindly quash the suspension order dated 09/01/2026 for being illegal and having been issued in violation of Rule 09 of Chhattisgarh Civil Service RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.05.15 18:20:47 +0530 2 (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. (ii) To kindly direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume duties forthwith in view of automatic revocation of suspension and to grant all consequential benefits including full salary. (iii) To kindly direct the respondents to treat the period from 09/01/2026 till the impugned suspension order is set aside as regular period and relase the salary for the aforesaid period. (iv). To kindly grant any other relief that may be deemed fit and just in the fact and circumstance of the case may also be made.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after expiry of 90 days from the date of issuance of the suspension order, a copy of the charge- sheet along with other documents has not been supplied to the petitioner and even the suspension order has not been extended. Hence, in view of the second proviso to sub-rule (5)(a) of Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which provides that where a Government servant is placed under suspension, the charge-sheet should be issued within 90 days from the date of the order of suspension, failing which the order of suspension shall stand revoked automatically, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement. He would further submit that in the present case, the charge-sheet has neither been served upon the petitioner within 90 days nor has the order of suspension been extended or revoked formally. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to join service on the regular post which he was holding prior to suspension. 3 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, submits that neither has the charge-sheet been issued within 90 days nor has the order of suspension been extended. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and particularly in view of the admitted position that neither the charge- sheet has been issued to the petitioner within the stipulated period of 90 days nor the suspension order has been extended in accordance with Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, this Court is of the considered opinion that the suspension order dated 09/01/2026 cannot be allowed to continue any further. 6. The second proviso to sub-rule (5)(a) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1966 clearly provides that where a Government servant is placed under suspension, the charge-sheet is required to be issued within 90 days from the date of suspension, failing which the suspension order shall stand revoked automatically unless extended in accordance with law. 7. In the present case, admittedly neither the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner within the prescribed period nor has the suspension order been extended. Consequently, the suspension order dated 09/01/2026 is deemed to have been revoked automatically on expiry of the prescribed period. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to 4 permit the petitioner to resume duties forthwith on the post which he was holding prior to suspension.. 9. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul