1 CGHC010345612026 2026:CGHC:39216 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6522 of 2026 Santosh Kumar Narang S/o Late Shri M.R. Narang Aged About 59 Years Excise Sub Inspector, Tahsil Kharsiya And Dharamjaygadh, Present Address Gram And Post Telikot, Tahsil Kharsiya, P.S. Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Commissioner Of Excise (Commercial Tax Gst, North Block Sector 19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector (Excise) Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy Commissioner Excise (Flying Squad) Sarguja, Distt. Sarguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri T.K. Jha, Senior Advocate along with Shri Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General along with Shri Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.09.10 10:36:03 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 07.09.2026 1. The petitioners have filled, this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned second suspension order dated 19.06.2026/19.08.2026 (as applicable), whereby the Petitioner has been again placed under suspension, being arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and contrary to the settled principles governing exercise of power of suspension; 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Direct the Respondents to forthwith reinstate the Petitioner in service and permit him to discharge his duties on an appropriate post in accordance with law; 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Direct the Respondents to treat the period of second suspension of the Petitioner as duty period, with all 3 consequential service benefits, subject to the final outcome of the departmental/criminal proceedings, as may be permissible in law; 10.4 Grant any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience, including the costs of the petition, in the interest of justice. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension whereby he has been placed under suspension pursuant to the filing of a charge-sheet against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The impugned order of suspension has been passed under Rule 9(1)(b) of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, “the CCA Rules, 1966”). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 04.09.2025 and the impugned order is the second order of suspension. It is contended that, since the petitioner has been suspended for the second time, the provisions of Rule 9(5)(b) 4 of the CCA Rules, 1966 would be applicable and, in the absence of compliance with the said provision, the impugned order of suspension is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention he places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 215/2022, decided on 16.06.2022, in the matter of Ritu Surange v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order cannot be treated as an order of suspension for the second time in terms of the provision relied upon by the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed under Rule 9(1)(b) of the CCA Rules, 1966, on account of the issuance of a charge-sheet in a criminal case pending against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner deals with a different factual situation, wherein the order of suspension was passed in connection with the issuance of a charge-sheet in a departmental enquiry, and therefore, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the 5 judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner and the relevant provisions of Rule 9(1)(b) of the CCA Rules, 1966. 6. Rule 9(1) of the CCA Rules, 1966, which is relevant for the present controversy, reads as under:— 9. (1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension :- (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial : Provided that a Government servant shall invariably be placed under suspension when a challan for a criminal offence involving corruption or other moral turpitude is filed against him Provided further that where the order of suspension 6 is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made. xxx xxx xxx 7. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that Rule 9(1)(b) specifically empowers the competent authority to place a Government servant under suspension where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. The first proviso further provides that a Government servant shall invariably be placed under suspension when a challan for a criminal offence involving corruption or other moral turpitude is filed against him. 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the impugned order of suspension has been passed after filing of the charge-sheet/challan against the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act before the competent criminal Court. Thus, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Rule 9(1)(b) of the CCA Rules, 1966. Once the charge-sheet/challan in respect of the criminal offence has been filed before the competent criminal Court, 7 the competent authority is empowered, and in the circumstances contemplated by the first proviso, is required, to place the Government servant under suspension. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is a second order of suspension and, therefore, Rule 9(5)(b) of the CCA Rules, 1966 would be attracted, cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The earlier order of suspension and the impugned order are required to be examined in the context of the respective provisions under which they have been passed. The impugned order has been passed independently in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 9(1)(b) on account of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 10. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Ritu Surange v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (supra) is distinguishable on facts and does not advance the case of the petitioner in the present circumstances. The said judgment deals with a different factual and legal situation and, therefore, cannot be applied mechanically to the present case. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no 8 illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of suspension passed under Rule 9(1)(b) of the CCA Rules, 1966. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib