1 CGHC010296112026 2026:CGHC:35509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6069 of 2026 Mukesh Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Umakant Mishra Aged About 48 Years R/o - B-37 Dreams Enclave, Ashok Nagar, Birkona Road, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Director Department Of Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Divisional Joint Director Education Department, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Akash Deep Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State :Mr. Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 12.08.2026 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.08.12 17:34:52 +0530 2 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the suspension order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P/3), the appellate order dated 02.07.2026 affirming the suspension, the charge- sheet dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P/6), and all consequential departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was posted as Assistant Director in the Office of the Divisional Joint Director (Education), Bilaspur, an incident occurred on 13.06.2025 during a protest by certain teachers, pursuant to which allegations were made that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol. He submits that the preliminary enquiry was conducted without any contemporaneous medical examination, and the finding of intoxication was based merely on oral statements and video footage, despite the petitioner’s physical disability. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge-sheet was issued. It is further submitted that the appellate authority has affirmed the suspension without properly considering the petitioner’s contentions and that the disciplinary proceedings are founded on the same preliminary enquiry report, without any reliable medical or scientific evidence establishing intoxication. Hence, the impugned orders and consequential departmental proceedings are liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the petitioner and submits that the 3 petitioner cannot seek interference by this Court at this stage, when the departmental enquiry and disciplinary proceedings are pending. He further submits that the impugned orders and the issuance of the charge-sheet do not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. It is well settled that ordinarily this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not interfere with the departmental enquiry or the issuance of a charge-sheet at the threshold, particularly when the disciplinary proceedings are yet to be concluded. Interference may, however, be warranted in exceptional circumstances where the charge- sheet or the disciplinary proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, or the charges are ex facie vague, arbitrary or unsupported by any material. Keeping the aforesaid principles in view, the contentions raised by the petitioner are required to be examined. 6. In the case at hand, the petitioner has challenged the impugned charge-sheet on the ground that the charge framed against him is wholly arbitrary and vague. However, from perusal of the said charge-sheet, it appears that the charge framed against the 4 petitioner is specific and contains the particulars of the alleged misconduct. At this stage, this Court cannot enter into the correctness or sufficiency of the material forming the basis of the charge. Thus, at this belated stage, no ground for interference with the charge-sheet or the pending departmental proceedings is made out. 7. The petitioner has failed to make out any exceptional ground warranting interference with the charge-sheet or the pending departmental disciplinary proceedings at this stage. The contentions raised by the petitioner relate essentially to the correctness and sufficiency of the material forming the basis of the charges, which cannot appropriately be examined by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction at the threshold. The petitioner shall have adequate opportunity to raise all his objections and defences before the disciplinary authority in accordance with law. (See: Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha 2012 (11) SCC 565). 8. Since a departmental enquiry has been contemplated against the petitioner and the same is pending pursuant to the charge-sheet issued to him, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension before the appellate authority, which, after considering the matter in detail, dismissed the appeal by assigning cogent and sufficient reasons. The appellate authority, inter alia, took note of the medical examination of the petitioner, wherein it was recorded that the petitioner was 5 under the influence of chronic alcoholism and had an increased intake of alcohol. It was also noticed that, from the viral video, the petitioner could be seen misbehaving with the persons present in the office. On the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, the appellate authority affirmed the order of suspension. In such circumstances, at this stage, the petitioner cannot successfully challenge the charge-sheet or the consequential appellate order whereby his appeal seeking revocation of suspension has been dismissed. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned suspension order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P/3), appellate order dated 02.07.2026 (Annexure P/5) and the charge-sheet dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P/6) as also the preliminary enquiry report dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure P/2), warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Resultantly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE $. Bhilwar