Punnilal Aditya vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 34 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                          NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      Writ Petition (S) No. 2212 of 2021

      Punnilal Aditya S/o Shri Set Ram Aditya, Aged About 42 Years,
      Working As Ayurvedic Pharmacist At Primary Health Center, Bhedwan,
      Tahsil- Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Jashpur
      (Kachhar), Tahsil- Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

                                                                   ---- Petitioner

                                      Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Health
      And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,
      District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   2. Director, AYUSH, DKS Bhawan Parisar, Old Nurses Hostel, Raipur
      Chhattisgarh 492001

   3. District Ayurvedic Officer, Bilaspur, O/o District Ayurvedic Officer,
      Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

   4. District Ayurvedic Officer Raigarh, O/o District Ayurvedic Officer,
      Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

                                                              ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 05.04.2021

1. The limited grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is the

prolonged period of suspension w.e.f. 06.05.2018.

2. According to the petitioner, working on the post of Ayurvedic

Pharmacist the petitioner has been placed under suspension w.e.f.

06.05.2018 vide order dated 24.05.2018. The petitioner has been

suspended on account of his implication in a criminal case in Crime No.

98/2018 registered at Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh for the

offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Referring to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar

Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary and Anr.

reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that beyond the period of 90 days, the authorities are

supposed to reconsider the issue whether the service of the petitioner

needs to be continued under suspension of not. He submits that in the

instant case, no such decision has till date been taken by the

authorities concerned.

3. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition at

this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondent no.2 to

consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and take

a decision as to whether the service of the petitioner needs to be

continued under suspension or not.

4. According to the petitioner, the criminal case is progressing at a very

slow pace and by now even the charge sheet has not been framed.

This aspect would also be borne by the authorities in mind while

considering the case of the petitioner.

5. Let a decision be taken by the respondent no.2 at the earliest

preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of

this order.

6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/-

P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai