NAFR 1 - Govind Sao S/o Late Shri Kartik Ram Aged About 61 Years v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.07.01 10:21:05 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4737 of 2025 NAFR 1 - Govind Sao S/o Late Shri Kartik Ram Aged About 61 Years Posted As In Charge Block Education Officer At Durg, Chhattisgarh. R/o Near Post Office, Block No. 201/ A, Risali Sector, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Block 3 First Floor, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Commissioner Durg, Division Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education Officer District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) For State : : Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. Hon ’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition against the order dated 02- 06-2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner’s services have been suspended. He prayed the following reliefs in his writ petition; “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/ quash the impugned Suspension order Dated 02.06.2025 (P/1) issued by the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Durg C.G. 10.2 To kindly grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed 2 fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Cluster Academic Coordinator and in-charge Block Education Officer and is posted at Durg. There are allegations of submission of manipulated
Legal Reasoning
bench of this court in W.P.S. No. 2062/2016 (order dated 21-06-2021), the competency to pass the order of suspension of the Class-II Gazetted Officer, upon the Divisional Commissioner and the delegation of powers of the disciplinary authority have been upheld. The petitioner is also a Class-II Gazetted Officer, and the Divisional Commissioner, Durg, has rightly passed the order of suspension of the petitioner. He 4 would further submit that the suspension is not a punishment and therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner raised in the petition is that the Divisional Commissioner, Durg, is not the appointing authority of the petitioner and he cannot pass the order of his suspension as he was not competent for the same. Rule 9(1) of the CCA Rules, 1966 provides that 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 under suspension. Rule 9(1) is reproduced herein below, which 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 of trial” 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State would place a copy of the notification dated 04-08-2008, which empowers the Divisional Commissioner to impose penalties upon Class-II officers, which reads as under:- “No. F 3-1/2007/1-3- In pursuance of clause (a) and (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the Governor of Chhattisgarh hereby empowers all Divisional Commissioners of the State to 5 impose the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 10 of the said rules on Class-II officers (except the officers of the Judicial Services and the Police Department) of the State Government posted within their respective divisions.” 8. The coordinate bench of this court in W.P.S. No. 2062/2016, (Panchu Ram Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another (order dated 21- 06-2021) held the validity of empowerment of the Divisional Commissioner by the said notification dated 04-08-2016. Para 16 of the order passed in W.P.S. No. 2062/2016 is relevant to quote here, which is as under:- “16. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of aforesaid statutory provision and principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in A.K.Jadhav (supra), it is quite vivid that in the instant case, the State Government has delegated the power to impose penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1966 i.e. minor penalties to the Divisional Commissioner and as such, the Divisional Commissioner would be disciplinary authority within the meaning of Rule 2(d) read with Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1966 and he being disciplinary authority for Class II officer which the petitioner was at the relevant point of time, had power and jurisdiction to place him under suspension by virtue of notification dated 4.8.2008 and has rightly placed him under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding, as such, no exception can be taken by the petitioner on his suspension by the Commissioner as the Commissioner being disciplinary authority included in Rule 9(1) (a) of the Rules of 1966 was empowered to place a Government servant (Class II gazetted officer) under suspension, where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, as such, in my considered opinion, respondent No.2 Commissioner is absolutely within its jurisdiction to place the petitioner (Class II officer) under suspension and it cannot be held that he has no power and jurisdiction to place him under suspension. Argument raised in this behalf deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.” 9. From the aforesaid rules, notification and the order passed by the coordinate bench of this court in W.P.S. No. 2062/2016, it is quite vivid that the Divisional Commissioner would be the disciplinary authority within the meaning of Rule 2(d) read with Rule 9(1) of the CCA rules 1966 and being the disciplinary authority, the Divisional Commissioner 6 is empowered to pass the order of suspension of Class-II officers and had the jurisdiction to place him under suspension. The order passed in W.P. No. 3160/2006 (Annexure P-8) is distinguishable on the ground that the notification dated 04-08-2008 was not produced for its consideration before the coordinate bench. Therefore, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner from the order passed in W.P. No. 3160/2006. 10. A departmental appeal is provided under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, 1966, 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; 2[(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.” 11. The scope of judicial review against a suspension order has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Union of India and Another v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal”, 2013 (16) SCC 147, and para 22 and 27, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:-
Arguments
information to keep his wife, Smt. Kumudni Sao away from the zone of consideration under the rationalization process under the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024, and for the reasons of alleged misconduct and the act of the petitioner against Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1965, his services have been suspended by the order dated 02-06-2025 passed by the Respondent No. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the substantive post of the petitioner is Lecturer which is a Class-II Gazetted post and presently he is discharging his duties as Block Education Officer at Durg. The appointing authority of the petitioner is the Director, Public Instructions/Secretary, School Education Department, but the impugned order of suspension has been passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, who is not competent to pass the order. There is no contemplation of any departmental inquiry against the petitioner, which is violative of Rule 9(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short “CCA Rules, 1966”). It is also submitted by him that in the notification dated 04-08- 2008, the Divisional Commissioners are empowered to impose the penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 of the CCA Rules, 1966 whereas the suspension is provided in Rule 9 of the CCA Rule, 3 1966 for which the Commissioner is not empowered by the said notification. He would further submit that in an identical case of W.P. No. 3160/2006 (order dated 09-10-2014), the coordinate bench has passed the order, quashing the suspension order which was issued by an incompetent authority and the case of the petitioner is also similar to that of W.P. No. 3160/2006 and therefore the petitioner is entitled for the same relief. Since the impugned order of suspension has been passed on 02-06-2025 by the Commissioner, Durg Division, who is not the appointing authority of the petitioner and not competent to pass the order of his suspension, the same is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is challenging his suspension order dated 02-06- 2025 for which he is having an alternative remedy of filing of appeal under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, 1966, and therefore, present writ petition is not maintainable. He would further submit that the State Government has issued a notification dated 04-08-2008 by which the Divisional Commissioners have been empowered to impose the penalties specified in Clauses (1) to (iv) of Rule 10 of CCA Rules, 1966. He would further submit that in an order passed by the coordinate
Decision
“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 7 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 dehors the powers of judicial review.” 12. It is settled law that the order of suspension is not a 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 suspension of the petitioner’s services is that he submitted the manipulated information to keep his wife out of the zone of consideration under the rationalization process under the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024, which amounts to misconduct under Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The petitioner is having a specific remedy of appeal before the State Government as provided under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, 1966. 13. 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 that the petitioner does not make out any exceptional case to interfere with 8 the suspension order dated 02-06-2025 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner is at liberty to challenge his suspension order before the State Government as provided under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, 1966, if so advised. 14. In the result, the petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. inder Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge