Dwarika Nath Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6115 Chatt

                                     1


                                                                     NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        W.P.(S) No. 6120 of 2022

Dwarika Nath Mishra, S/o. Late Bhuneshwar Mishra, aged about 62
years, Occupation : Service, Presently Suspended From The Post Of
Assistant Grade -2, At Govt. Higher Secondary School - Keradih, Block
Kunkuri District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

                                                            ---- Petitioner

                                Versus

1.    State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Department Of
      School Education Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur
      Chhattisgarh.

2.    The    District   Education   Officer,   Jashpur   District   Jashpur
      Chhattisgarh

3.    Block Education Officer, Kunkuri - District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

                                                         ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate

For Respondents/State : Mr. Shubham Verma, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order On Board

29/09/2022

1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was

suspended from service vide order dated 03.06.2022, thereafter,

charge-sheet was also issued to him and departmental

proceedings are pending since long. He submits that after expiry

of period of 90 days, respondent authorities have not issued any

order for extension of period of suspension, therefore, submitted

a representation/application, before concerned authority for

revocation of order of suspension dated 03.06.2022, but till date

application has not been decided. He also submits that Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of

India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, have held that after expiry

of period prescribed under Rule i.e. 90 days, authorities are

required to issue fresh order for extension of suspension by

assigning reasons. He submits that at this stage, grievance of

petitioner would be redressed if a direction is issued to

respondent No.2 to consider and decide pending representation

expeditiously.

2. Mr. Verma, learned State counsel submits that representation

(Annexure P-3) to which petitioner wants to be decided is filed

only on 12.09.2022 and authorities will consider the same in

accordance with law.

3. Taking into consideration the facts of the case as well as

submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, who is only

seeking a relief of direction to respondent No.2 to decide

representation dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, I

find it appropriate to dispose of this petition at this stage directing

respondent No.2 to decide representation dated 12.09.2022

(Annexure P-3), within a period of 30 days from the date of

receipt of copy of this order keeping in mind the judgment passed

by Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).

4. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed off.

2. Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram