Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:41927 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6537 of 2025 1 - L. P. Patel (Laxmi Prasad Patel) S/o Shri Ishwar Prasad Patel, Aged About 59 Years Working As A In Charge District Education Offcer, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Education, Chhattisgarh Of School Government Of Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Sarangarh Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - In-Charge, District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Vaibhawari Singh Thakur, Principal Government Higher Secondary, School, Hardi, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with For State-Respondents : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer. Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate. For intervener/caveator Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 10-07-2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition against the order dated 12-06- Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the State Government, whereby the peti- 2 tioner, who is posted as In-charge District Education Officer, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, has been suspended. He prayed the following reliefs in his writ petition; “(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, directions to respondents’ authorities to quash/set-aside the impugned letter dated 12/06/2025 bearing no. ESTB-1024(2)/356/2025-20 issued by the Under Secretary (Respondent no.1). (ii) Any other order/ orders, direction/ directions and relief/ reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case, may also please be granted to the pe- titioner in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is posted as In-charge Dis - trict Education Officer and is posted at District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh. There are certain allegations against the petitioner that he, without prior permission of the Collector, changed the members of the flying-squad and misbehaved with the then In-charge District Education Officer, District Sarangarh-Bi- laigarh, which is misconduct under Rule 3 of the Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (in short “Rules of 1965”), and, his services have been sus- pended by the order dated 12-06-2025 passed by the State Government un - der Rule 9(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by the perverse order, the petitioner is placed under suspension. Vide order dated 13-03-2024 (An- nexure P-2), the petitioner was posted as In-charge District Education Offi- cer, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, in place of one Mr. S. N. Bhagat. The order dated 13-03-2024 was challenged by Mr. S.N. Bhagat in W.P.S. No. 1793/2024, on the ground that his retirement was due on 30-06-2024. The writ petition filed by Mr. S.N. Bhagat was allowed on 22-03-2024, and the ef- 3 fect and operation of the order dated 13-03-2024 with respect to Mr. S.N. Bhagat was stayed till 30-06-2024. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent back to his original place of posting, i.e. In-charge Principal, Govt. Hr. Sec. School, Dhansir, vide order dated 28-03-2024. Thereafter, vide order dated 29-11- 2024 (Annexure P-6), the Respondent No. 5 was posted as In-charge District Education Officer, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh and the petitioner was posted at the Govt. Hr. Sec. School, Hardi, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh. The peti- tioner challenged the order dated 29-11-2024 in W.P.S. No. 8122/2024. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner, no substance was found in the allegation against the petitioner, and the order dated 29-11-2024 was quashed vide or- der dated 03-02-2025. The order dated 03-02-2025 is upheld in W.A. No. 251/2025 by the Hon’ble division Bench, vide its order dated 21-04-2025. He
Decision
would further submit that the finding in the writ petition is that the posting of the petitioner cannot be disturbed on account of the order passed in the writ petition as well as the writ appeal. Now, instead of shifting the petitioner to that place, the authorities have suspended the petitioner. On 06-02-2025, a letter was written by the petitioner to the Respondent No. 2, intimating the conduct of the Respondent No. 5 and seeking direction with respect to action to be taken against her. On the very next day, i.e. on 07-02-2025, the peti- tioner received a notice from the Collector, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, asking him to file his reply on the complaint dated 07-02-2025, made by Respondent No. 5. The petitioner submitted his reply on 10-02-2025. Thereafter, on 28-02- 2025, the Collector has constituted the flying-squad team for Higher Sec- ondary and High School examination, which were scheduled between 01-03- 2025 to 28-03-2025 and 03-03-2025 to 24-03-2025, respectively. The peti- tioner was made the head of Team No. 2, which consists of three other mem- bers, namely Mr. Fakira Yadav (Asstt. Sports Officer), Mr. Gopal Patel (Asstt. Teacher) and Smt. Rajkiran Bagga (Lecturer). Due to certain difficulties and on the application made by the members of the flying-squad team, the mem- 4 bers of Team Nos. 5, 6 and 10 have been changed by the petitioner vide or - der dated 01-03-2025 and 04-03-2025, which was subsequently approved by the Collector, on 17-03-2025. All of a sudden, the petitioner received a show cause notice on 09-05-2025 (Annexure P-13) from the State government, al- leging in it that the petitioner has changed the members of the flying-squad team without prior approval. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause notice on 14-05-2025, and replied that due to necessity and an emergent sit- uation, and since the Collector was out of station, he changed the members of the team who were having various difficulties. There was no change in any head of the Team and only some of the members were substituted, and the Collector has approved it on 17-03-2025. Thereafter, on 12-06-2025, the peti- tioner was suspended on perverse grounds that he had not replied to the show cause notice, and his reply was not found satisfactory. If the entire background of the case is seen, the posting of the petitioner is approved by the order dated 03-02-2025, passed in W.P.S. No. 8122/2025, and the order dated 21-04-2025, passed in Writ Appeal No. 251/2025, and to regle out the situation and with mala fide intention, the impugned order of suspension of the petitioner is passed on 12-06-2025, which is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the submis- sions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the peti- tioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules of 1966. The order dated 29-11-2024 is quashed on the ground that the junior was made In-charge District Education Officer, whereas the petitioner was senior. It is not that the merits of the complaint were consid - ered in the W.P.S. No. 8122/2024 filed by the petitioner, and the petitioner cannot claim to remain at a particular place of his posting. The flying-squad Team were constituted by the Collector, and without prior approval, the peti- tioner changed some of the members of the flying-squad Team of other Team numbers. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner with respect to mis- 5 behaviour and mental harassment of the then District Education Officer was not replied and it is only the show cause notice dated 09-05-2025 is replied. He would further submit that the suspension is not a punishment and there- fore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for caveators has supported the action of the State Government and the suspension order of the petitioner and would sub- mit that on the complaint made by the caveators, the action has been taken against the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents an- nexed with the petition. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order is passed with mala fide intention and arbitrarily only to come out from the order dated 03-02-2025 passed in W.P.S. No. 8122/2024 and the order dated 21-04-2025 passed in W.A. No. 251/2025. From perusal of the order dated 03-02-2025 passed in W.P.S. No. 8122/2024, it transpires that the said writ petition is al - lowed on the ground that the junior to the petitioner was made In-charge Dis- trict Education Officer, at Sarangarh-Bilaigarh. The merits of the complaint have not been considered in the writ petition. In the present case, the allega- tion against the petitioner is that his act is found to be misconduct under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1965, as he has changed some of the members of the fly- ing-squad Team without prior approval and the show cause notice with re- spect to misbehaviour with the then In-charge District Education Officer has not been replied. Further, the reply to the show cause notice (dated 09-05- 2025) is not satisfactory. The allegation that the members of the flying squad team have been changed without prior approval of the Collector. Considering the misconduct, the petitioner is suspended by the State Government, while invoking the powers under Rule 9(1) of the CCA Rules of 1966. 8. 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 6 other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor, by general or Spe- cial order, may place under suspension. Rule 9(1) is reproduced herein be- low which reads as under:- “Rule 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 criminal offence involving corruption or other moral turpitude is filed against him : 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.” 9. 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:- “Rule 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; 7 (iii) an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 9;” 10. 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:- “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 na- ture 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 the 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 to which version is true when there are claims and counterclaims on factual issues. The court cannot act as if it is an appellate forum de hors the powers of judicial review.” 8 11. It is settled law that the order of suspension is not a punishment. The require- ment 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 has changed some members of the flying squad team without prior approval of the Collector and misbehaved with the then District Education Of- ficer and has not replied to the show cause notice, which amounts to miscon- duct under Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Mala fide includes the bundle of facts, including the genuineness of the com- plaint against the petitioner, which cannot be examined in the writ petition. The petitioner is having a specific remedy of appeal before the State Govern- ment as provided under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, 1966. 12. In view of the foregoing analysis and also in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court does not find any exceptional case to interfere with the suspension order dated 12-06-2025 (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. 13. In the result, the petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Aadil Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge