1 CGHC010382402026 2026:CGHC:42315 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7182 of 2026 Amrit Lal Roheldar S/o Lt. Balveer Roheldar Aged About 63 Years Presently Posted As Chief Medical And Health Officer, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Under Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Additional Collector District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 4. Chhattisgarh State Community Health Officer Sangh Through Its State President, Office At Health And Wellness Centre, Bhattagaon, Bilha, District Bilaspur 5. Additional Director Directorate Of Health Services, Swasthy Bhawan, 2nd Floor Sector -2 Nava Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 6. Mithlesh Sahu Rural Health Officer, Ayushman Aarogya Mandir, Badnara, Navgadh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 7. Damini Thakur Rural Health Officer, Ayushman Aarogya Mandir, Godhikala, Navgadh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr.S.S. Badgaiya, G.A. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.09.29 16:53:36 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 29/09/2026 1. In the instant petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 15.09.2026, whereby he has been placed under suspension under Rule 9(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for brevity ‘the CCA Rules’). The allegations against the petitioner pertain to the use of inappropriate language and inappropriate physical contact with women employees. 2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while posted as Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Bemetara, had initiated proceedings against certain Community Health Officers on account of their alleged dereliction of duty and unsatisfactory performance. It is contended that the complaint on which the petitioner has been suspended was subsequently made by the Chhattisgarh State Community Health Officers Association is retaliatory in nature and has been lodged against the petitioner by way of vengeance. It is further submitted that the inquiry was initiated suo motu by the Under Secretary and was conducted by him without constitution of any independent committee. It is also contended that only the statements of the complainant Community Health Officers were recorded, whereas the persons who were willing to depose in favour of the petitioner were not examined, which, according to 3 learned counsel, demonstrates bias and mala fide on the part of the authorities. Learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned order dated 15.09.2026, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension under Rule 9 of the CCA Rules, is arbitrary, suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside. He further placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Dr. Kamlesh Dubey Vs. State of C.G. and Ors decided on 23.09.2025 (WPS No. 3704 of 2015). 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submission. It is submitted that the impugned order is an order of suspension and not an order imposing any penalty upon the petitioner. The allegations relates to sexual misconduct and the matter is required to be examined in the departmental proceedings. He would further submit that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of appeal provided under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules and the writ petition is not maintainable challenging the suspension order. The allegation against the petitioner includes various factual aspects, which cannot be determined in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this Court cannot examine the correctness of the allegations against the petitioner in the writ petition. He would further submit that the judicial review against a suspension order is very limited, as the suspension does not cast any stigma upon the employee. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 4 5. In the instant matter, learned counsel for the State has raised a specific objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition as the impugned suspension order is appealable under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, however, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not point out the ground for which the writ petition will be maintainable when the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy as provided under Rule 23. 6. Ordinarily, an employee’s services can be placed under suspension in the following contingencies: a) Where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending. b) Where the disciplinary authority was of the prima facie opinion that the employee is engaged in activities prejudicial to the interest and security of the State; c) Where the case against him in respect of criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial; d) Pending investigation/enquiry into allegations, it is found not desirable to continue the employee in service in public interest; e) Such continuation in service during pending enquiry/investigation is likely to prejudice the investigation, trial, enquiry; there is a possibility of tampering of documents, influencing the witnesses, etc; f) It is also permissible to suspend an employee if his 5 continuation is likely to cause/encourage indiscipline in the organization. 7. In the matter of “State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty” 1994 (4) SCC 126, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 13 that:- “13. It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one 6 of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge.” 8. A plain reading of the aforesaid judgments makes it clear that, whether charges are baseless, malicious or vindictive, cannot be gone into at the stage of examining the validity of suspension 7 order. At the stage of suspension, the correctness of allegations is not required to be looked into. The public interest is also an element on the consideration of which an employee can be placed under suspension. This is within the province of the Disciplinary Authority to decide, whether an employee is required to be suspended or not, because suspension is a step towards ultimate result of an investigation or an inquiry. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “M. Paul Anthoni v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited” 1999 (3) SCC 679 has held in para 26 that:- “26. To place an employee under suspension is an unqualified right of the employer. This right is conceded to the employer in service jurisprudence everywhere. It has even received statutory recognition under service rules framed by various authorities, including Govt. of India and the State Governments. (See: for example, Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. Even under the General Clauses Act, this right is conceded to the employer by Section 16 which, inter alia, provides that power to appoint includes power to suspend or dismiss.” 10. Further, in the matter of “Ashok Kumar Aggarwal” (supra), in para 22 and 27, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:- “22. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be 8 summarised to the effect that suspension order can be passed by the competent authority considering the gravity of the alleged misconduct i.e. serious act of omission or commission and the nature of evidence available. It cannot be actuated by mala fide, arbitrariness, or for ulterior purpose. Effect on public interest due to the employee’s continuation in office is also a relevant and determining factor. The facts of each case have to be taken into consideration as no formula of universal application can be laid down in this regard. However, suspension order should be passed only where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent, and if the charges stand proved, would ordinarily warrant imposition of major punishment i.e. removal or dismissal from service, or reduction in rank etc. 27. Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position. More so, at this stage, it is not desirable that the court may find out as which version is true when there are claims and counter claims on factual issues. The court cannot act as if it an appellate forum de hors the powers of judicial review.” 9 11. In matters of suspension, the exercise of extra-ordinary power of judicial review vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Scope of consideration is limited to the extent of examining the competence of the authority who places an employee under suspension; arbitrary exercise of power; selective suspension; allegations are frivolous/technical in nature; suspension was wholly unwarranted; and there was no application of mind. In matters of suspension, each case has to be examined in the factual background of the given case. 12. Be that as it may, against the order of suspension passed under Rule 9, a Government servant may prefer an appeal to the State Government under Rule 23 of the Rules, 1966 which categorically provides for a departmental appeal against the order of suspension of the employee to the State Government. However, in the case at hand, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner without availing such remedy has straightaway approached this Court. Rule 23 of the Rules, 1966, reads as under:- “23. Orders against which appeal lies.- Subject to the provisions of Rule 22, a Government servant may prefer an appeal against all or any of the following orders, namely- ( i ) an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 whether made by the disciplinary authority or by any appellate or reviewing authority; 10 (ii) an order enhancing any penalty, imposed under Rule 10; (iii) [an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 9;] Explanation. - In this rule the expression "Government servant" includes a person who has ceased to be in Government service.” 13. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others Vs. Major General Shri Kant Sharma and Another {(2015) 6 SCC 773} has held that when statutory remedy is available, High Court should not entertain the petition. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the impugned order of suspension has been passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction or competence. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not availed the alternative statutory remedy of appeal available to him under Rule 23 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Thus, at this juncture, the reliance placed by the petitioner upon the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Dr. Kamlesh Dubey (supra) is not applicable. 15. In view of the foregoing analysis and also in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court does not find any mala fide or arbitrariness in passing the suspension order and anything against who has passed the order of suspension and further is of the opinion that the petitioner does not make out any 11 exceptional case to interfere with his suspension order dated 15.09.2026 invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge his suspension order before the State Government as provided under Rule 23 of CCA Rules, 1966, if so advised. 16. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 17. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and in case if the appeal is filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and decide the same on its own merits without being influenced any any of the observations made hereinabove. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti