Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31143 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5711 of 2025 1 - Mansingh Bhardwaj S/o Shri Nandlal Bhardwaj Aged About 54 Years Substantive Post Principal At Present Working On The Post Of Block Education Officer, Jagdalpur District - Bastar(C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Avar Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Public Instruction Department Directorate Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Commissioner Bastar Division Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector And President District Level Yuktiyuktkaran Samiti , District - Bastar Jagdalpur (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer District Bastar Jagdalpur (C.G.) ---- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.08 18:28:21 +0530 Order on Board 2 04/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition against the order dated 06-06-2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by Respondent No. 4, whereby the petitioner’s services have been suspended. He prayed the following reliefs in his writ petition:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ or writs for quashing / set aside the order dated 06.06.25 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.4, Collector & President District Level Rationalization Committee, District Bastar Jagdalpur (C.G.). (ii) Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2.
Facts
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Principal and presently discharging the duty of Block Education Officer and is posted at Jagdalpur, District Bastar. There are allegations of submission of manipulated information to the authorities concerned for rationalization of the teachers under the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024, and for the reasons of alleged misconduct and the act of the petitioner against Rule (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1965, his services have been suspended by the order dated 06-06-2025 passed by the Respondent No. 4. 3.
Legal Reasoning
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 8 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 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.S. No. 2804/2015 (Annexure P-10) 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.S. No. 2804/2015. Further, after approval of the Commissioner, the Collector has issued the order of suspension. 10. A departmental appeal is provided under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, 9 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; (iii) [an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 9;] [Inserted by Notification No. C-5-6-87-3-XLIX, dated 1-10-1988.] 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
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the substantive 3 post of the petitioner is Principal, which is a Class-II Gazetted post, and presently, he is discharging his duties as Block Education Officer at Jagdalpur, District Bastar. The appointing authority of the petitioner is the Director, Public Instructions/Secretary, School Education Department, but the impugned order of suspension is passed by the Collector and Chairman, District Level Rationalization Committee, District Bastar (Jagdalpur), 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 Conduct) Rules, 1966 (in short “CCA Rules, 1966”). It is also submitted by him that the Collector himself has not signed the order of suspension, but on his behalf, some other authority has signed the same, which cannot be done. There should be a contemplation of the departmental enquiry in the order of suspension, but the same is missing in the present case. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner was on leave from 02-06-2025 to 06-06-2025 and out of headquarters from 01-06-2025 to 08-06-2025, and in his absence, a notice was issued directing him to appear on 05-06-2025 before the District Education Officer and in his absence, the impugned suspension order was passed. Since he was at Seoni (M.P.) in a marriage function, he could not reach till 05-06-2025. He would further submit that in an identical case of W.P.S. No. 2804/2015 (order dated 10-08-2015), 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 4 to that case of W.P.S. No. 2804/2015 and the petitioner is entitled for the same relief. Since the impugned order of suspension is passed on 06-06-2025 by the Collector, Bastar (Jagdalpur), 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 06-06-2025 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. The impugned order dated 06-06-2025 is approved by the Commissioner, and then only the Collector has issued the order and therefore, it cannot be said that the Collector has issued the suspension order. He would further submit that in an order passed by the coordinate 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 Collector has rightly issued the suspension order, which is approved by the Divisional Commissioner, Bastar (Jagdalpur). He would further 5 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 Collector, Bastar (Jagdalpur), is not the appointing authority of the petitioner, and he cannot pass the order of his suspension, and 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 : [Provided that a Government servant shall invariably be placed under suspension when a challan for a 6 criminal offence involving corruption or other moral turpitude is filed against him:] [Inserted by Notification No. C-6-2-96-3-(I), dated 3rd August. 1996.] Provided further that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made.” 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State would place a copy of the notification dated 04-08-2008, which empowered the Divisional Commissioner to impose the penalties upon Class-II officers, which reads as under:- “10. शाቜኌ(cid:4)(cid:5)याँ - शासकीय सेवक पर, नि(cid:17)म्(cid:17)लि(cid:20)लि(cid:21)(cid:5) शाቜኌ(cid:22)(cid:5)याँ अच्छे (cid:5)था पया(cid:27)् कारणों में (cid:5)था इसमें इसके प्ቐा(cid:5)् उपबቜኌ(cid:22)&(cid:5) गये गये अ(cid:17)ुसार, अधि&रोनिप(cid:5) की जा सके गी, अथा(cid:27)(cid:5), - (cid:20)घु शाቜኌ(cid:4)(cid:5)याँ (एक) परिरनि(cid:17)(cid:22)दाः (दो) उसकी पदो्ቐधि(cid:5) का रोका जा(cid:17)ा; ((cid:5)ी(cid:17)) अपे्ቌा से या आदेशों के भंग ्ቛारा शास(cid:17) को उसके ्ቛारा पहु ंचाई गई निकसी आቕኌथक हानि(cid:17) की पूण(cid:27) रूप से या उसके निकसी भाग की उसके वे(cid:5)(cid:17) से वसू(cid:20)ीः [(चार) वे(cid:5)(cid:17) की वृधि?यों का या गधि(cid:5)रो& भ्ቈे का रोका जा(cid:17)ाः] मुख्य शाቜኌ(cid:4)(cid:5)याँ [(पाँच) निकसी उቤኌCलि(cid:21)(cid:5) का(cid:20)ावधि& के लि(cid:20)ये अव(cid:17)(cid:5) करके ये(cid:5)(cid:17) के समय- 7 मा(cid:17) के नि(cid:17)म्(cid:17)(cid:5)र ्ቚ्ቅम में, ऐसे और नि(cid:17)देशों के साथ (cid:20)ाया जा(cid:17)ा निक क्या शासकीय सेवक ऐसी अव(cid:17)धि(cid:5) की का(cid:20)ावधि& के दौरा(cid:17) यथाቜኌ(cid:4)थधि(cid:5) वे(cid:5)(cid:17) वृधि?याँ या गधि(cid:5)रो& भ्ቈा उपቌኌज(cid:5) करेगा या (cid:17)हीं और क्या ऐसी का(cid:20)ावधि& के समा् हो जा(cid:17)े पर ऐसी अव(cid:17)धि(cid:5) उसके वे(cid:5)(cid:17) की भावी वृधि?यों को या गधि(cid:5)रो& भ्ቈे को (cid:4)थनिग(cid:5) कर(cid:17)े का ्ቚभाव र(cid:21)ेगी या (cid:17)हीं;]” 8.
Decision
“22. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that suspension order can 10 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.” 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. Further, the petitioner is not suspended on the ground 11 that he failed to appear before the District Education Officer on 05-06-2025, but has been suspended for his misconduct in submitting the manipulated information during the rationalization process. In the present case, the reason for suspension of the petitioner’s services is that he submitted the manipulated information provided by him during the rationalization of teachers under the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024, which amounts to misconduct under Rule (i), (ii) and (iii) 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. Certain factors are to be considered by the disciplinary authority for the suspension of an employee prior to the departmental enquiry. A “Contemplation of departmental inquiry” in a suspension order means the employer is considering initiating a formal investigation into potential misconduct by an employee. The suspension, in this context, is a precautionary measure pending the outcome of that investigation. It’s not a disciplinary action itself, but rather a step taken while the employer assesses whether disciplinary proceedings are necessary. In essence, suspension in contemplation of a departmental inquiry is a procedural step aimed at ensuring a fair and thorough investigation into alleged misconduct, while also protecting the interests of the employer and the workplace. 14. 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 12 the petitioner does not make out any exceptional case to interfere with the suspension order dated 06-06-2025 (Annexure P-5). 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. 15. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge