1 2026:CGHC:18568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2896 of 2026 1 - Sandeep Chaurasiya S/o Shri Sunil Kumar Chaurasiya Aged About 40 Years Constable/ Gd, Cisf No. 074370353, Cisf Unit Secl Bilaspur, Currently Under Suspension Camp At Hq Coy., Cisf Unit Secl Bilaspur Through Wife Manisha Kumari W/o Sandeep Chaurasiya Aged About 30 Years, R/o Cisf Quarter Secl Bilaspur District Bilaspur ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi 110001 2 - Director General Cisf, Central Industrial Security Force Headquarters, 13 Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 3 - The Deputy Inspector General Cisf Unit Secl Bilaspur, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commandant/ Lr Cisf Unit Secl Bilaspur 5 - Senior Commandant Cisf Unit Secl Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Advocate For Respondents/UoI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI with Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.04.29 13:04:33 +0530 2 Order on Board 23/04/2026 1. Challenge in this writ petition is that order dated 16.03.2026, whereby petitioner has been put under suspension. She contended that petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing. The respondent authorities served charge-memo dated 14.03.2026 asking him to submit reply, however within a period of 2 days the order of suspension has been passed, therefore, it is in violation of principle of natural justice. 2. Counsel for the respondent opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that petitioner is having alternate efficacious remedy for appeal under Rule 44 & 46 (1) (i) CISF Rules, 2001. 3. Submission of counsel for petitioner is that, petitioner first served with a charge memo on 14.03.2026 granting him 10 days time to file reply and prior to completion of 10 days, order of suspension has been passed on 16.03.2026 and therefore, the order of suspension is passed in violation of principle of natural justice. This submission of counsel for the petitioner in the opinion of this Court is not sustainable. The purpose of granting time in the charge-memo is to submit response/defence to be taken by the delinquent employee against charges framed, in the enquiry proceedings. For the 3 purpose of issuing an order of suspension, it is not mandatorily required to grant opportunity of hearing. If the petitioner is having any other grounds available to him on merits to challenge the order of suspension, he is having alternate efficacious remedy available under the aforementioned rules, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 4. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed reserving the liberty to petitioner to avail the other alternate remedy available under law to challenge the order of suspension dated 16.03.2026. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi