1 CGHC010030272026 2026:CGHC:32078 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 924 of 2026 Dileshwar Singh S/o Krishna Pratap Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Aara, Nawapara, Tahsil - Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Co- Operative, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies Surguja Division, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4. Authorized Officer Aadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadi, Khairbar, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Shahil Singh, P.L. For Respondents No. 4 : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 27/07/2026 1. Perusal of the order sheets shows that respondent No. 4 on 21.04.2026 took time to file reply but till date not reply has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.29 10:48:10 +0530 2 this Court vide judgment dated 10.03.2025 (Ajay Kumar Sinha Vs. State of C.G. and Ors.) wherein the court has held as under:- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of suspension has been passed against the Primary Krishi Sakh Sahkari Society Seva Niyam, 2018. According to petitioner before passing order of suspension Rule 17 was required to be followed and it can only be passed after getting approval from the Divisional Joint Registrar, however, that has not been done and thereafter the suspension would not be for more than 3 months and it is required to be extended it could not be extended more than 6 months. However, in the. present case nothing has been done and the petitioner is suspended since 15.06.2024 as such the order dated 15.06.2024 is required to be quashed and the authorities are required to be directed to revoke the suspension of the petitioner forthwith. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that though rules have not been followed but looking to the acts committed by the petitioner he has rightly been suspended. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care. 6. Since the order impugned is contrary to Rule 17 of 3 the Service Regulations Act, 2018, as such prima facie it seems that the impugned order has been passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner without following Rule 17 of the Service Regulations Act, 2018, as such the impugned suspension order dated 15.06.2024 is hereby quashed. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the present case is identical to that of WPS No. 6998 of 2024, this petition may also be allowed in the same terms. 5. Having considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials available on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to WPS No. 6998 of 2024, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in the aforesaid writ appeal. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 10.03.2025 passed in WPS No. 6998 of 2024. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti