Smt. Manisha Pathak vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4689 Chatt

                                                                    Page 1 of 3

                                                                             NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          WPS No. 4883 of 2022

      Smt. Manisha Pathak, W/o Shri Yogesh Kumar Chelik, Aged
      About 32 Years, R/o Shantipara, Near Bharat Atta Chakki, Bhilai-
      3, P.S. Bhilai-3, Tahsil- Patan, District- Durg (C.G.)
                                                             ---- Petitioner
                                  Versus
1.    State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of
      Health/Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police
      Station & Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur
      (C.G.)
2.    Collector, Office of Collector, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.)
3.    Chief Medical and Health Officer, Office of Chief Medical and
      Health Officer, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.)
                                                        ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 22.07.2022

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working on the post of Pharmasist Grade-II in District Hospital Bemetara and on 22.03.2022 (Annexure P/1) due to some allegations levelled against the petitioner, respondent No. 2/Collector Bemetara suspended the petitioner from service. Thereafter, charge-sheet dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure P/2) has been issued to the petitioner. The contents of the charge-sheet is as under:-

"01- fnukad 11-03-2022 dks ftyk fpfdRlky;] csesrjk esa vkifRrtud fofM;ks fjdkfMZax ds laca/k esa ftyk Lrjh; takp ny dh izfdz;k esa tkucq>dj ck/kk mRiUu fd;k tkdj 'kkldh; vkns'k dk vogsyuk fd;k x;k rFkk takp vf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkFk vHknzrk fd;k x;kA mDr d`R; NRrhlx<+ flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 03 ds ¼1½¼,d½¼nks½¼rhu½ ds fo:) gSA"

2. The charge-sheet has been issued against her alleging that she

has not followed the order of the superior officer and committed misconduct as per Rule (1)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965.

3. The petitioner has also participated in the enquiry and submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 02.05.2022 (Annexure P/3) thereafter, Collector vide order dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure P/4) rejected the reply submitted by the petitioner and initiated departmental enquiry appointing enquiry officer as well as presenting officer to conduct enquiry for the charges levelled against her. The petitioner has submitted representation for consideration of revocation of suspension order and for closing the enquiry on 05.07.2022 (Annexure P/5). The disciplinary proceeding is pending before the disciplinary authority and immediately the petitioner has filed the present petition on 10.07.2022 praying for direction to respondent No. 2 to pass an order as per the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court Ajay Kumar Choudhary [(2015) 7 SCC 291] by revoking the suspension order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Deman Singh Chandrakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [WPS No. 4561 of 2020 (decided on 03.12.2020)] and also the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) is squarely applicable.

5. From the records of the case, it is evident that the facts of the case in hand is distinguishable from the facts of that case in Deman Singh Chandrakar (Supra) as in that case suspension order was issued, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and nothing was done within five months, therefore, Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition at this juncture can be disposed off directing the respondent No. 3 to reconsider whether there is any necessity in continuing the petitioner under suspension, particularly taking note of the fact that he has already remained under suspension

for almost six months now. Whereas in the present case the proceedings are being taken expeditiously as the petitioner was suspended on 22.03.2022, charge-sheet was issued on 22.04.2022, enquiry officer has been appointed on 13.05.2022. It is the managerial function of the employer to keep the employee suspended pending enquiry and it is also not in dispute that as per the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) if the suspension is for such a long period, then the Court can issue direction to revoke the suspension, this is not the situation in the present case, therefore, at this juncture, this Court cannot issue any direction to the respondents, but non-issuance of any direction by this Court at this juncture, does not debar the authorities to examine the case of the petitioner looking to the administrative exigency and availability of manpower for smooth functioning of the department.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Arun