Krishano Prasad Kurre vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1895 Chatt

                                        -1-


                                                                                 NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                         Writ Petition (S) No. 4385 of 2021

   1. Krishano Prasad Kurre S/o Late Shri Umathu Ram Kurre Aged About 47
      Years (Scheduled Caste), R/o Bansuladipa, Basna, District Mahasamund
      Chhattisgarh.
                                                                    ---Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
   1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Panchayat and
      Rural Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal
      Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
   2. The Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
                                                                  ---Respondents

      For Petitioner               :        Shri TK Jha, Advocate.
      For State                    :        Ms. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

                        Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                 Order on Board

23.08.2021

1. The present is a second round of litigation. The earlier round of litigation

was WPS No.1649 of 2021. The petitioner seems to be aggrieved of the

prolonged suspension.

2. The petitioner in the present writ petition was placed under suspension

vide order dated 16.02.2021 passed by the Collector, District

Mahasamund. The petitioner substantively is an employee under Rural

Engineering Services Department working and posted under the

Panchayat Department. For certain illegalities and alleged irregularities the

petitioner was placed under suspension vide order passed by the District

Collector on 16.02.2021. The petitioner preferred first round of litigation by

WPS No.1649 of 2021. The said writ petition got disposed of permitting the

petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority and also had

directed the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance

with law after issuance of a charge sheet.

3. The petitioner by filing present writ petition now submits that it is a case

where though more than six months have passed, no charge sheet till date

has been issued to the petitioner either by his employer or from the office

of the District Collector who had placed him under suspension. It is further

contention of the petitioner that since it is more than six months now that

he has remained under suspension, in view of judgment of Supreme Court

in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Another, 2015(7)SCC291

the authority needs to revisit the order of suspension which is in operation

beyond the period of 90 days, which in the instant case has crossed over

six months.

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

juncture stands disposed of directing the respondent No.2 i.e. the authority

who has placed the petitioner under suspension to reconsider the aspect

whether the petitioner is required to be continued suspension or not in

terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar

Choudhary (Supra). Therefore, let the respondent No.2 take an

appropriate decision at the earliest preferably within a period of 45 days

from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder