1 2026:CGHC:18699 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2306 of 2026 Bajrang Das S/o Shri Chaman Das Aged About 47 Years R/o Stadium Para, Jhirmiti, Surguja, Block - Udaipur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of School Education, First Floor, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Public Instructions, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Divisional Joint Director School Education, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Distrct Education Officer Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Block Education Officer Block - Udaipur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 23.04.2026 2 Heard. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following relief:- “10.1 To call for records of the instant case. 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may please to hold that the Impugned order dated 12.08.2025 stood revoked as the same is in contravention of Rule 9(2-a),(2-b) & (5)(a) of the Rules of 1966 and may kindly be please to direct the respondent authorities to give joining to the petitioner at the present place of posting. 10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may please to quash the order of suspension dated 12.08.2025 holding to be in contravention of Rule 9(2-a), (2-b) & (5) (a) of the Rules of 1966 and may kindly be please to direct the respondent authorities to give joining to the petitioner at the present place of posting. 10.4 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to revoke the suspension order as charge sheet has not been issued within 45 days from the date of order of suspension and may kindly be please to direct the respondent authorities to give joining to the petitioner at the present place of posting. 10.5 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent authorities to kindly consider the case of the petitioner in light of the 9(2-a), (2-b) & (5) (a) of the Rules of 1966 and take a decision on the suspension of the petitioner and give him joining at his present place of posting within a stipulated time period as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.6 That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is holding the post of Assistant Teacher (LB) since 24.08.2018 was, put under suspension based on the complaint received by District Education Officer/respondent no. 4, on 12.08.2025 vide (Annexure P-1). He submits that the order of suspension is politically motivated as on the 3 date of receipt of alleged complaint the order of suspension was passed. He next submits that the petitioner under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 was put under obligation to serve charge-memo upon the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of order of suspension. The charge-memo which is handed over to petitioner was only on 09.12.2025 i.e. beyond the period as prescribed under proviso Rule 9(2)(5)(a) ,Rules of 1966. He submits that even after issuance of the charge memo mentioned in letter Annexure P-4 dated 09.10.2025 to be considered then also the issuance of charge-memo on 09.10.2025 is also beyond the period of 45 days. According to the first proviso of Rules of 9 (5)(a) in cases where the charge-memo is not issued within 45 days, after completion of 45 days revocation of suspension is automatic and, therefore, as on date the suspension order issued by petitioner stands revoked automatically, however, the respondent authorities are not passing formal order in this regard and not even permitting the petitioner to work. 3. Learned counsel for State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that submission of learned counsel for petitioner that charge-memo was issued on 09.10.2025 is not correct. From the documents enclosed along with the writ petition itself clearly reflects that charge-memo was issued by the competent authority on 09.12.2025. The writ petition is filed in the month of February, 2026 i.e. after issuance of the charge-memo. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties as also the pleading made in writ petition, reply and documents enclosed along with this writ petition. 5. From the pleadings in the writ petition, it is apparent that petitioner has taken specific ground that after suspension he was not served with charge-memo within 45 days. It is also specifically pleaded that issuance of charge-memo dated 09.10.2025 is made after the time as provided under Rule of 1996. Respondent State in the reply has only pleaded the fact of issuance of charge-memo and no pleadings were made on merits of the case with regard to application of second proviso of Rule 9 (2) (5)(a) of the Rules of 1966. 6. Rule 9 is under part 4 of the Rules of 1966 which deals with suspensions. Provision under Rule 9(2)(5)(a) is also extracted below for ready reference:- (5)(a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule, shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so: [provided that the order of suspension shall stand revoked on expiry of the period of forty five days from the date of order of suspension in case a copy of charges and other documents referred to in sub-rule (2-a) are not issued to such Government servant by the disciplinary authority (if it is not the State Government servant by the disciplinary authority (if it is not the State such Government) without obtaining the orders of the State Government for extension of the period for issue of the said documents, as required under sub-rule (2-b): Provided further that the order of suspension shall stand revoked on expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of order of suspension, in case the copy of charges and other documents referred to in sub-rule (2-a) are not issued to such Government servant.] 5 7. The wording used under the provision is clear and ambiguous. It talks of the order of suspension shall continue to remain in force only if it is revoked by authority which is competent to do so. It is under proviso which specifically mentions that in cases where employee is under suspension, and is not served with the copy of charge memo and other documents referred to in sub Rule 2 of Rule 9 which is not issued to the Government Servant by the disciplinary authority, the order of suspension shall stand revoked on expiry of the period of 45 days from the date of order of suspension. 8. From the date and events as pleaded in the writ petition in reply it is not in dispute that petitioner is under suspension from 12.08.2025. The period of 45 days will come to an end on 26.09.2025. It is the pleading made in the reply admitting that the charge memo was issued to the petitioner/delinquent employee only on 09.10.2025 which is beyond the period of 45 days as prescribed under Rule 9(2)(5)(a) of Rule of 1966. The provision under Rule 9(2)(5)(a) provides for automatic revocation of order of suspension if the charge memo is not served to delinquent employee/petitioner within a period of 45 days by disciplinary authority. 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court the respondent-State failed to comply with the provisions under proviso to Rule 9(2)(5)(a) and, therefore, the order of suspension has been automatically revoked, upon completion of period of 45 days in the facts of the case and therefore, this writ petition stands allowed. 10. Respondent-State is directed to pass appropriate orders of joining/posting of petitioner pending departmental enquiry. Upon 6 passing of an order of joining to the post in favor of petitioner the concerned authority shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, thereafter if it so desire. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- Alfiza (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.04.27 17:12:57 +0530