Chattisgarh High Court
Karuna Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 March, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 6128 of 2021
1. Karuna Sahu W/o Ramkrishna Sahu Aged About 41 Years Village Nariyara
Tehsil Akaltara District Jajgir Champa Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home Affairs
Mantaralay Mahamadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur. District Raipur.
Chhattisgarh
2. Director, General Home Guard, Headquarterd Mana,raipur Chhattisgarh
3. District Commandent Home Guard Janjgir District Janjgir Chattisgarh
4. Superintendent Of Polic Janjgir District Janjgir Chhattisgarh
5. Collector, Janjgir District Janjgir Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. C.J. K. Rao, Advocate
For State : Mr. Ishan Verma, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
09.03.2022
1. Aggrieved by the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 25.06.2020,
the present writ petition has been filed.
2. Vide the impugned order, the respondents have placed the services
of the petitioner under suspension. The suspension order by efflux of
time has been in operation for almost 21 months.
3. The primary contention of the petitioner in the present writ petition is
that under the rules governing the field i.e. the Chhattisgarh Home
Guard Rules 1947, a suspension order is in-fact an order of
punishment and therefore the requisite procedure as is laid down
under Rule 12 has to be followed by the respondents before placing
the petitioner under suspension, which in the instant case According
to the petitioner has not been followed. The further contention of
counsel for the petitioner is that even otherwise since the order of
suspension is dated 25.06.2020 in-terms of the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs.
Union of India reported in 2015(7) SCC 291., the respondents were
required to reconsider the question of suspension of the petitioner
beyond a period of 90 days.
4. The State counsel on the other hand submits that it is a case where
the petitioner was in-fact issued with a show-cause notice in-respect
of allegation levelled against him and upon the petitioner furnishing
her reply to the show-cause notice, did the respondents take a
decision for placing the petitioner under suspension and therefore, the
requirement as per Rule 12 has been met. So far as the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary
(supra), the learned counsel for the State/respondents fairly concedes
that the respondent-authorities shall take an appropriate decision in
the case of the petitioner in-terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary at the earliest.
5. Given the fact that the State Counsel submits that the case of the
petitioner shall be reconsidered in-terms of the directions given by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary and
also taking note of Paragraph 10 of the reply of the State
Government, wherein the respondents themselves have submitted
that subject to the petitioner making a suitable representation/ request
to the competent authority for reinstating her in services, the
authorities shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law
governing the field at the earliest.
6. On the said submission made by the Counsel for the State, the
present writ petition as of now is disposed of permitting the petitioner
to make a suitable representation to the respondent no. 3. Subject to
the petitioner making a suitable representation in this regard within a
period of 10 days, the respondent no. 3 in-turn shall consider the case
of the petitioner both on its merits as also in the light of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary
and take an appropriate decision within a further period of 45 days
from the date of receipt of copy of representation of the petitioner.
7. The present writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Jyoti
