NAFR 1 - Rajendra Kumar Mishra S/o Late Kailash Chandra Mishra Aged About 62 v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4288 of 2025 NAFR 1 - Rajendra Kumar Mishra S/o Late Kailash Chandra Mishra Aged About 62 Years Presently Working As Executive Engineer At Maniyari, Water Resource Division, Mungeli, Distt- Mungeli (C.G.) Attach After Suspension Office Of The Engineer In Chief, Water Resources Division, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief Mahanadi Project, Water Resources Department, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Hasdeo Basin, Water Resources Department, Bilaspur, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - S.K. Badhoriya Sub-Divisional Officer, Water Resources Sub Division No. 5, Kanki, Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner For Respondent/State : : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate and Mr. Vivek Verma, Advocate Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.17 18:23:08 +0530 2 13/06/2025 1. The petitioner is questioning his suspension order dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 1 and claiming revocation of the same and also to consider his representation dated 30.05.2025 and filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:- “Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners most humbly pray for the following relief: - i. To call for the entire records available in the office of the Respondents pertaining to the case of petitioners.
Facts
ii. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner and decide the representation dated 30.05.2025 pending before the Respondent Authority for revocation of suspension order. iii. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authority to revoke the suspension order 20.05.2025 and give the permission to petitioner for join his service. iv. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to the entire 3 period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty. v. Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. The brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings and documents annexed with the petition are that the petitioner is initially appointed in the year 1994 on the post of Sub-Engineer and was posted at Water Resources Department at Mungeli. During the entire service tenure, he was promoted and posted at different places and ultimately was promoted from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer and was posted at Maniyari, Water Resources Division, Mungeli vide order dated 23.08.2024. The place of posting of the petitioner was at Maniyari Barrage, Project division, Mungeli. The Maniyari Barrage was sanctioned by the State Government on 13.07.2007 and an amount of Rs. 1921.87 lakhs were sanctioned for the project. The sanction of amount was revised on 15.04.2011 by the State Government, and the revised sanction was Rs. 4375.31 lakhs. It was again revised to Rs. 12452.78 lakhs including the acquisition of land of village Kuksada, Raunakapa, Sanwatal and deposited the amount of Rs. 6700.00 lakhs before the Collector, Mungeli. On 04.11.2024, the Executive Engineer wrote a letter to the State Government for completing the remaining work of the Maniyari Barrage along with the cost of remaining work 4 amounting to Rs. 822.67 lakhs and on 16.12.2024, a letter written by the Engineer-in-Chief to the State Government for revision of the sanction and its approval, but the same is still pending for its administrative sanction. 3. It is also the case of the petitioner that, the Pathariya Barrage project was sanctioned by the State Government on 12.03.2012 and an amount of Rs. 3586.20 lakhs were sanctioned. The sanction amount was sent for its revision and the revised proposal for Rs. 8380.52 lakhs were sent for its approval and sanctioned on 23.09.2016 to the State Government, which is still pending. 4. The officers on special duty wrote a letter on 17.09.2024 to the Engineer-in-Chief for administrative sanction and direction regarding verification of the project of Pathariya Barrage. The Superintending Engineer submits its report with respect to Pathariya Barrage and also submitted a revised administrative proposal for Maniyari Barrage. It is also the case of the petitioner that in a meeting held on 19.05.2025 by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State, in which it came into knowledge about discontinuation of the Maniyari Barrage as well as Pathariya Barrage project since 2017 due to administrative approval, decided to suspend the petitioner and ultimately vide order dated 20.05.2025, the petitioner is suspended under Rule 9(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short ‘CCA Rules’) on the ground that the petitioner is negligent in discharging his duty to get 5 his efforts to complete the pending project of Pathariya Barrage and Maniyari Barrage, which amounts to misconduct under the CCA Rules and his headquarter is fixed at the office of Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Atar Nagar, Nawa Raipur, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 5.
Legal Reasoning
prima facie evidence on record against the petitioner with the alleged misconduct, therefore, his suspension order is liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would 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. After considering the entire material, the authorities concerned have considered for suspension of the petitioner and there is sufficient material available before the 7 authorities to consider the same, and therefore, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. The scope of judicial review against a suspension order has been considered by Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjiv Rajan” reported in 1993 Suppl. 3 SCC 483, and in para 5 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- “5. The ground given by the High Court to stay the operation of the suspension order, is patently wrong. There is no restriction on the authority to pass a suspension order second time. The first order might be withdrawn by the authority on the ground that at that stage, the evidence appearing against the delinquent employee is not sufficient or for some reason, which is not connected with the merits of the case. As happened in the present case, the earlier order of suspension dated 22nd March, 1991 was quashed by the High Court on the ground that some other suspended officer had been allowed to join duties. That order had nothing to do with the merits of the case. Ordinarily, when there is an accusation of defalcation of the monies, the delinquent employees have to be kept away from the establishment till the
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Executive Engineer vide order dated 28.06.2023 and has joined at Water Resources Department, Mungeli as Executive Engineer on 21.08.2023, which has been intimated on 23.08.2023 to the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Division, Bilaspur. Both these projects are lying ideal since 2017 and no liability is fastened upon the officers, who are there prior to the petitioner. After joining, he made his efforts and wrote letters to the higher authorities for revised administrative approval, but the same are still pending before the authorities and there is no misconduct on the part of the petitioner. The charge leveled against the petitioner till his suspension order is so vague that he has not made his sincere efforts to get the project continued and to complete the same at the earliest. There is no disciplinary proceeding pending against the petitioner, nor any complaint against him. The petitioner is going to retire on 31.07.2025 and at the fag end of his service tenure, he has been suspended without any sufficient reason. There is no willful and deliberate omission on the part of the petitioner and the suspension order is arbitrary and mala fide. In support of his submission, he would rely the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter 6 of “Union of India and another v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal” 2013 (16) SCC 147 and “Public Service Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and another” 2003 (4) SCC 104 and submits that suspension of the employee should be made only in case, where strong prima facie case against employee and the allegations involved moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of the superior authority, if proved, would ordinarily result in reduction in rank, removal or dismissal from service, but it is not the situation in the present case. There is no
Decision
charges are finally disposed of. Whether the charges 8 are baseless, malicious or vindictive and are framed only to keep the individual concerned out of the employment is a different matter. But even in such a case, no conclusion can be arrived at without examining the entire record in question-and hence it is always advisable to allow the disciplinary proceedings to continue unhindered. It is possible that in some cases, the authorities do not proceed with the matter as expeditiously as they ought to, which results in prolongation of the sufferings of the delinquent employee. But the remedy in such cases is either to call for an explanation from the authorities in the matter, and if it is found unsatisfactory, lo direct them to complete the inquiry within a stipulated period and to increase the suspension allowance adequately. It is true that in the present case, the charge-sheet was filed alter almost a year of the order of suspension. However, the facts pleaded by the appellants show that the-defalcations were over a long period from 1986 to 1991 and they involved some lakhs, of rupees. It also appears that the authorities have approached the police and in the police investigation, the amount of defalcation is found to be still more. Since the matter is of taking accounts which are spread over from 1986 to 1991 and of correlating the entries with the relevant documents, and several individuals are involved, the framing of charges was bound to take some time. The Court has to examine each case on its own facts and decide whether the delay in serving the charge-sheet 9 and completing the inquiry is justified or not. However, in the present case the High Court has not quashed the order of suspension on the ground of delay in framing of the charges. As stated earlier, it has set aside the order of suspension on the ground that the authority had no power to pass the second order of suspension in the same case. We are afraid that the High Court has misconstrued the nature and purpose of the power of suspension vested in the management. It is not disputed that at present all officers concerned are served with the charge-sheets and have been suspended. There is no discrimination between the officers on that account. The charges are also grave and the authorities have come to the conclusion that during the disciplinary proceedings, the officers should not continue in employment to enable them to conduct the proceedings unhindered. Hence, we are satisfied that the order in appeal was not justified.” 9. 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 5 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483: 1994 SCC (L&S) 67: (1993) 25 ATC commission, 10 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 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 11 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.” 10. 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 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. 11. 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:- 12 “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.” 12. 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 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 13 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.” 13. Rule 23 of CCA Rules, 1966 provides for a departmental appeal against the order of suspension of the employee to the State Government, which 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; (ii) an order enhancing any penalty, imposed under Rule 10; 14 (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.” 14. It is settled law that the order of suspension is not that of punishment. The requirement of the law is that the reason should be there in the order of suspension. In the present case, the reason for the suspension of the petitioner is mentioned that, he is negligent in discharging his duty by not taking any proper steps for completion of the important irrigation projects of Maniyari Barrage and Pathariya Barrage, which amounts to misconduct under the CCA Rules, 1996. The petitioner is having specific remedy of appeal before the State Government as provided under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules. 15. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not extend any benefit to him, as the case of “Ashok Kumar Aggarwal” (supra) and “Public Service Tribunal Bar Association” (supra) does not support the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, rather it holds that whether the employee should or should not continue in their office during the period of inquiry, is a matter to be assessed by the authorities concerned and ordinarily the Court should not interfere with the order of suspension. 15 16. 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 further is of the opinion that the petitioner does not make out any exceptional case to interfere with his suspension order dated 20.05.2025 invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge his suspension order before the State Government as provided under Rule 23 of CCA Rules, if so advised. 17. In the result, the petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge