1 / 3 2026:CGHC:25329 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4635 of 2026 Rupesh Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Mathura Prasad Pandey Aged About 53 Years R/o Presently Working As Incharge Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Durg District Durg C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Principal Secretary Panchayt And Rural Development Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur C.G. 2 - Commissioner Durg Division Durg District Durg C.G. 3 - Collector District Durg District Durg C.G. 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Durg District Durg C.G. 5 - Shri Puran Singh Deshmukh S/o Girdhari Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Khanda Tehsil And District Durg C.G. Presently State To Be Mandal Mahamantri Bharatiya Janta Party Anda /nankum Mandal District Durg C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Additional Advocate General (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 22/06/2026 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.06.23 10:50:25 +0530 2 / 3 Heard. 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 01/06/2026 (Annexure P/9) passed by Respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner, who was working as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Durg has been suspended under Rule 9(1) (a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the CCA Rules, 1966). 2. After arguing at length learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the merit of the petition is concerned he is to approach the appellate authority but he is only questioning the jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel, on instructions, would submit that the circular dated 04/08/2008 which is a circular issued by the State Government empowers the Divisional Commissioner to impose punishment under Clauses 10 (i) to (iv) of the CCA Rules, 1966, hence the Divisional Commissioner is the disciplinary authority of the employee/petitioner, who is a Class-II Officer and the Commissioner has passed the order by exercising the jurisdiction and the said order is just and proper. He referred to the order passed by this Court in WPS No.2062 of 2016 wherein the same circular has been considered and the same issue has been taken. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. From perusal of the impugned order dated 01/06/2026 it appears that the order has been passed by the Divisional Commissioner by exercising 3 / 3 power as a disciplinary authority of the CEO who is a Class-II Officer. Hence there is no illegality in the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner and the contention of the petitioner that the suspension order suffers from the jurisdictional error is not acceptable. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and hereby dismissed, in respect of issue of competence of the authority who has passed the order of suspension. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu