Vijay Kharra vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 379 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                       NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        Writ Petition (S) No. 2471 of 2021

   1. Vijay Kharra S/o Late Nathuram Aged About 55 Years Posted As
      Assistant Grade 2 (Now Suspended), Office Of Superintending
      Engineer (E/m) Circle, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution
      Company Limited, Raigarh                            ---- Petitioner

                                      Versus

   1. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through Its
      Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company
      Limited, Dagania, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

   2. The Executive Director Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution
      Company Limited, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

   3. The Superintending Engineer (E/M) Circle Chhattisgarh State
      Electricity Distribution Company Limited Raigarh, District Raigarh
      Chhattisgarh.                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Anil S. Pandey, Advocate.

For State          :       Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. G.A.


                       Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                               Order On Board
17.06.2021

1. Aggrieved by the prolonged suspension of the petitioner, the present

writ petition has been filed.

2. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner

was placed under suspension vide order dated 27.09.2014 i.e. almost

seven years back and till date, he continues under suspension. It is the

contention of the petitioner that though subsequently there has been a

charge-sheet issued by the department as early as on 26.10.2015 but

till date the departmental enquiry has not been concluded, though more

than six years have passed from the date of issuance of the charge-

sheet.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits 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), it is now incumbent upon the

respondents to have reconsidered the order of suspension and should

have decided whether the order of suspension deserves to be

interfered with or not.

4. Having heard the contention put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner

considering the fact that it is more than seven years that the petitioner

has been placed under suspension.

5. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v.

Union of India where Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph -21 has

held as under:-

21. "We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension."

6. Given the said facts, at this juncture the present writ petition is

disposed of directing the respondents No. 2 & 3 to take an appropriate

decision keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and decide as to whether

the petitioner needs to be continued under suspension or not. Let an

appropriate be taken in this regard by the respondents No. 2 & 3 within

a period of 60 from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/-

1. P. Sam Koshy Judge Jyotijha