Suresh Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 901 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                       NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        WPS No. 3274 of 2021

   1. Suresh Sharma S/o Late Gajanand Sharma Aged About 55 Years R/o
      Transport Nagar, Bhoramdev Road, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham,
      Chhattisgarh.

                                                               ---- Petitioner

                                  Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Co- Operative Society
      Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,
      District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   2. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa
      Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   3. Sub- Registrar Cooperative Societies, Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

   4. Chief Executive Officer Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit
      Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

   5. President Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Rajnandgaon, Branch-
      Bodla, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

                                                    ----Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocate.

For State                     : Ms. Abhyunnati Singh, P.L.


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


06.07.2021

1. The petitioner has filed present writ petition being aggrieved of the

prolonged suspension period in service.

2. Perusal of the pleadings would show that the petitioner, working on the

post of Assistant Society Manager under the respondent No. 5, was

placed under suspension vide order dated 24.09.2020.

3. Primary grievance of the petitioner seems to be the prolonged period

during which he has been kept under suspension. According to the

Counsel for the petitioner, it has been about 10 months now that the

petitioner remains under suspension and till date there has been no

development on the disciplinary front.

4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that in the light of the

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

Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) 7 SSC 291), the respondent No. 5 is

required to reconsider the case of the petitioner since the suspension

period exceeds more than 90 days and the respondents need to decide

whether the petitioner's service needs to be further continued under

suspension or not.

5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, so far as the

claim of the petitioner for revocation of suspension is concerned, the

writ petition at this juncture is disposed of directing the respondent No.

5 i.e. the authorities who has placed the service of the petitioner under

suspension, to review and reconsider whether the service of the

petitioner needs to be continued under suspension or it has to be

revoked. Let the respondent No. 5 take an appropriate decision in this

regard at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from the

date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. With the aforesaid observations, Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

1. P. Sam Koshy Judge Jyotijha