Chattisgarh High Court
Jaiprakash Jaiswal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 September, 2021
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 4824 of 2021
Jaiprakash Jaiswal S/o Ramsewak Jaiswal Aged About 34 Years R/o Village
Rameshpur, Secretary Gram Panchayat Kamalpur, Janpad Panchayat
Wadrafnagar, Tehsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin
Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal
Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Commissioner Surguja District Surguja Chhattisgarh
3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Balrampur District Balrampur-
Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Advocate
For State : Mr. Ishan Verma, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
10/09/2021
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the prolonged suspension that the
petitioner has been placed. The petitioner in the instant case was
working as a Panchayat Secretary at Gram Panchayat Kamalpur,
Janpad Panchayat Wadrafnagar, Tehsil Wadrafnagar, District
Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
2. The services of the petitioner was placed under suspension on serious
allegations of misconduct on 26.09.2020. The departmental appeal
preferred by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 is said to be still
pending.
3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for a limited direction
to take an appropriate direction in the light of 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].
4. According to the petitioner, for the last more than 11 months the
services of the petitioner remains under suspension and the
departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner also is progressing
at a very slow pace. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ajay Kumar Choudhary"
(supra) an appropriate decision has to be taken at the earliest.
5. To the limited relief that the petitioner seeks for reconsideration on the
order of suspension in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of "Ajay Kumar Choudhary" (supra), the State
counsel does not oppose. However, the State counsel submits that the
departmental enquiry contemplated against the petitioner is in
progress the gravity of the charge are all to been seen while deciding
the claim of the petitioner.
6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of
record, undoubtedly the petitioner's services remained under
suspension for the last 11 months. The departmental proceedings also
does not seem to be progressing at a fast pace. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of "Ajay Kumar Choudhary" (supra) has in
paragraph No. 21 categorically held that in every case, where an
employee has been placed under suspension and the order of
suspension continues beyond a period of 90 days, the authority who
has passed the order of suspension need to reconsider as to whether
the order of suspension needs to be continued further or not. An order
in this regard has to be passed by the concerned authority, which in
the instant case is the respondent No.3 i.e. the authority who has
placed the services of the petitioner under suspension.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of
directing the respondent No.3 to reconsider the order of suspension of
the petitioner and to pass a fresh order taking a decision as to whether
the services of the petitioner still needs to be kept under suspension or
not, and let a decision be taken by a speaking order in this regard at
the earliest preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of
receipt of the copy of this order.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Ved
