1 CGHC010232042026 2026:CGHC:29299 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5262 of 2026 Madhuri Karsal D/o Shri K.R. Karsal Aged About 50 Years R/o B-07, Swastik Colony, Khamtarai, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur C.G. Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur Distt. Raipur. C.G. 2 - The Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G. 3 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Department Of School Education Naya Raipur Distirct Raipr C.G. 4 - Joint Director Department Of Public Education Bilaspur Division Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur C.G. 5 - District Education Officer, District Raigarh C.G. 6 - Block Education Officer, Tamnaar, District Raigarh C.G. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Saluja, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Verma, GA (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 13/07/2026 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.15 17:40:04 +0530 2 1. The present petition has been filed seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs: "(i) Call for the entire records pertaining to the present case. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction, to the Respondents to consider the difficulties of petitioner and attach/transfer the petitioner to any place in Bilaspur District i.e near to her home city, Bilaspur (C.G) (iii) To quash the impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 01.08.2024 of District Education Officer, Raigarh (C.G) to the extent of place of attachment i.e Amlidih. (iv) To quash the impugned suspension order dated 23.01.2026 issued by District Education Officer, Raigarh (C.G) (Annexure P/2). (v) To quash the impugned chargesheet dated 06.03.2026 by District Education Officer, Raigarh (C.G) (Annexure P/3). (vi) To order respondent authorities to pay petitioner salary from the month of July 2024 to actual joining of the petitioner with all other monetary and consequential benefits for which she is entitled. (vii) To compensate & grant cost of petition to the petitioner. (viii) Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was promoted from the post of Assistant Teacher (L.B.) to the post of Head Master and posted at Government Primary School, Chhindbhouna, Block Tamnar, District 3 Raigarh on 18.08.2023. While discharging her duties, she noticed certain irregularities in implementation of the Mid-Day Meal Scheme and reported the same to the superior authorities. It is her case that on account thereof she developed disputes with subordinate teachers and certain local persons, culminating in an alleged incident of assault on 23.07.2024. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made complaints before the departmental authorities as well as the police authorities. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the department, whereafter the petitioner came to be attached to Government Primary School, Amlidih by order dated 01.08.2024. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WPS No.8313 of 2024, wherein this Court directed the competent authority to decide her representation while staying the operation of the attachment order till such decision. Thereafter, upon rejection of the representation by the Joint Director on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner again approached this Court in WPS No.9073 of 2025, wherein liberty was granted to submit a fresh representation before the Secretary, School Education Department, with a corresponding direction to decide the same within the prescribed period. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite repeated representations and directions issued by this Court, the petitioner's grievance has not been redressed. It is contended that because of an apprehension to her life arising out of the earlier incident, the petitioner could not join at the place of attachment. Instead of considering her request for posting at a safer place, the respondents have placed her 4 under suspension and thereafter issued the impugned charge-sheet. It is further submitted that the suspension has continued beyond the prescribed period without any order extending the same and that the petitioner has neither been paid salary since July, 2024 nor subsistence allowance during suspension. According to learned counsel, the impugned actions are arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore deserve to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the grievance relating to the petitioner's attachment and transfer has already been considered by this Court in the earlier two rounds of litigation. Pursuant to the order passed in WPS No.9073 of 2025, the petitioner has already invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court alleging non-compliance thereof. It is, therefore, submitted that the grievance relating to attachment/transfer has already been considered by this Court and the petitioner, having already availed the remedy of contempt, cannot be permitted to reagitate the same issue by way of the present writ petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner failed to join at the place where she was attached and, consequently, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated in accordance with law. The suspension order and the charge-sheet form part of the disciplinary process, and the petitioner has adequate opportunity to raise all factual and legal objections before the disciplinary authority. It is, therefore, submitted that no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 7. So far as the petitioner's grievance relating to attachment/transfer is concerned, it is evident from the record that the issue has already been considered by this Court in WPS No.8313 of 2024 and thereafter in WPS No.9073 of 2025, wherein appropriate directions were issued to the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation. It is also not disputed that alleging non-compliance of the order passed in the second writ petition, the petitioner has already instituted contempt proceedings, which are stated to be pending. Once the grievance relating to attachment/transfer has already been considered by this Court and the petitioner has already invoked the contempt jurisdiction alleging non-compliance of the order passed in WPS No.9073 of 2025, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said issue cannot be permitted to be reagitated by filing the present writ petition. 8. It is also pertinent to note that despite two earlier orders passed by this Court granting liberty and issuing directions to the competent authority, the petitioner has again invoked the writ jurisdiction seeking substantially the same reliefs while simultaneously pursuing contempt proceedings. Such a course cannot be countenanced in law. 9. The challenge to the suspension order and the charge-sheet also does not merit acceptance. It is well settled that ordinarily a writ petition against a charge-sheet or pending disciplinary proceedings is not maintainable unless the action is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction or vitiated by patent illegality. Whether the disciplinary proceedings are justified or otherwise is a matter to be examined by the disciplinary authority in 6 accordance with law. The petitioner shall be at liberty to submit her defence before the disciplinary authority, which shall consider the same in accordance with law. 10. The allegations regarding the assault, threat perception and the reasons for the petitioner's failure to join at the place of attachment involve seriously disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence, which cannot be gone into in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The law is well settled that the charge sheet should not be quashed at an initial stage and it is always open to the petitioner to raise whatever pleas are available before the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner has ample opportunity to raise his grievances and any opinion made at this stage may affect the proceedings, which have been initiated. (See: Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha 2012 (11) SCC 565). 12. Insofar as the petitioner's claim regarding salary, subsistence allowance and other consequential monetary benefits is concerned, the same is consequential to the disciplinary proceedings and the plea raised by the petitioner regarding continuation of suspension beyond the prescribed period is also a matter which may be urged before the competent authority in accordance with the applicable service rules. It is open to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available in law before the competent authority. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference under Article 7 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul