Ramkumar Dixit vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3558 Chatt

                                        1
                                                                           NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          WPS No. 3527 of 2022

   1. Ramkumar Dixit S/o Late Jai Narayan Dixit Aged About 56 Years R/o Kali Mai
      Ward, Mungeli, Tehsil And District - Mungeli (C.G.), District : Mungeli,
      Chhattisgarh

                                                                    ---- Petitioner

                                    Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And
      Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District :
      Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   2. Director Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Indrawati
      Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   3. Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat, Mungeli, District : Mungeli,
      Chhattisgarh                                     ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate.

For State                       :      Mr. Kunal Das, Panel Lawyer


                    Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                               Order On Board
12.05.2022

1. The prolonged suspension of the petitioner is what is under challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner who works as an Assistant Grade-III under the respondent no. 3, was placed under suspension on 02.11.2021.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that though more than 6 months have passed, till date the departmental enquiry contemplated has not been finalized. The respondent no. 3 has also not reconsidered the issue as to whether the suspension of the petitioner needs to be continued or not. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is more than 6 months now and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291., the respondents are liable to

reconsider the order of suspension of the petitioner and to take a fresh decision as to whether suspension is to be continued or not.

3. To the limited relief, the State Counsel does not oppose the same. He submits that it has to be verified as to whether the delay in the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the respondents are responsible for the same or not.

4. Having heard the contention put forth on either side and on perusal of records, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the paragraph 21 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) wherein it has been held has 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."

5. Given the said directives by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present writ petition as of now is disposed of directing the respondent no. 3 to take an appropriate fresh decision as to whether the period of suspension of the petitioner has to be continued or not. Let an appropriate decision in this regard be taken within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

P. Sam Koshy Judge Jyoti