Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Sarswati Rajak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 June, 2025

                                                                   2025:CGHC:27911

                                                                               NAFR

                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                     WPS No. 4620 of 2025

        1 - Smt. Sarswati Rajak W/o Ramesh Kumar Aged About 34 Years R/o
        Village- Banjari, Post- Madai, Tahsil And Block- Podi-Uproda, District- Korba
        (C.G.)
                                                                     ... Petitioner(s)

                                               versus

        1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Health And Family Welfare
        Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
        District Raipur (C.G.)

        2 - Commissioner Health Services, Indirawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.)

        3 - Director Directorate Health Services, Indirawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur
        (C.G.)

        4 - Joint Director Health Services Seepat Road, Sarkanda Bilaspur (C.G.)

        5 - Chief Health And Medical Officer, District Korba C.G.

        6 - Block Health And Medical Officer, Podi- Uproda, District- Korba C.G.

                                                                       ... Respondent(s)

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Ravikar Patel, Advocate

For Respondent/State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board

Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date:

2025.07.09 19:09:27 +0530 25/06/2025

1. The petitioner is questioning his suspension order dated 26.05.2025

(Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No.5 and order dated

27.05.2025 (Annexure P/2), passed by the respondent No.6 and filed

the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

claiming the following reliefs:-

"10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased

call records of this matter for the pertaining of this

Hon'ble Court.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to

quash/set-aside order dated 26.05.2025 & 27.05.2025

(Annexure P/1 & P/2), in the interest of justice.

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems

fit and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the

facts & circumstance of the present case, in the ends

of justice."

2. The brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings and

documents annexed with the petition are that the petitioner is working

as ANM and was posted at Sub-Health Centre, Madai, Block Podi-

Uproda, District Korba. A complaint was made against her that, she

demanded bribe of Rs. 500/- from the patient Smt. Amisha for

correction in the birth certificate of her child and after preliminary

enquiry, the complaint was found correct. The conduct of the petitioner

is found as misconduct as provided under Rule 3 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and she has been suspended, which

is under challenge in the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was

initially posted as Rural Health Organizer (Female) at Sub-Health

Centre, Madai vide order dated 17.02.2017. There is no complaint in

her service tenure. She corrected the birth certificate of the daughter of

the complainant Smt. Amisha through online mode and when she

demanded a physical copy of birth certificate, she was unable to give

the same, as there was no printer available in the Health Centre and

then she made a false complaint about demand of bribe. No any show

cause notice has been issued to the petitioner before passing the

impugned order, and therefore, the impugned order of suspension is

liable to be set-aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently

opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner

and would submit that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of

appeal provided under Rule 23 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short "CCA Rules,

1966") and the writ petition is not maintainable challenging the

suspension order. The allegation against the petitioner includes various

factual aspects, which cannot be determined in the present writ petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this Court cannot

examine the correctness of the allegations against the petitioner in the

writ petition. He would further submit that the judicial review against a suspension order is very limited, as the suspension does not cast any

stigma upon the employee. After considering the entire material, the

authorities concerned have considered for suspension of the petitioner

and there is sufficient material available before the authorities to

consider the same, and therefore, there is no merit in the present writ

petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

annexed with the petition.

6. In the matter of "State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty" 1994 (4)

SCC 126, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 13 that:-

"13. It is thus settled law that normally when an

appointing authority or the disciplinary authority

seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or

contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into

grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds

or serious acts of omission and 5 1993 Supp (3) SCC

483: 1994 SCC (L&S) 67: (1993) 25 ATC commission,

the order of suspension would be passed after taking

into consideration the gravity of the misconduct

sought to be inquired into or investigated and the

nature of the evidence placed before the appointing

authority and on application of the mind by

disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or

disciplinary authority should consider the above

aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an

employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or

an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should

be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged

misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed

to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal

must consider each case on its own facts and no

general law could be laid down in that behalf.

Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of

forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the

duties of office or post held by him. In other words it

is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to

perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the

impression among the members of service that

dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending

employee could get away even pending inquiry

without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity

to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or

investigation or to win over the witnesses or the

delinquent having had the opportunity in office to

impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry

etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be

considered depending on the nature of the

allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible

impact it creates on the service for the continuance of

the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or

contemplated inquiry or investigation. It would be

another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides,

arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension

must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the

investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the

delinquent's continuance in office while facing

departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge."

7. A plain reading of the aforesaid judgments makes it clear that, whether

charges are baseless, malicious or vindictive, cannot be gone into at

the stage of examining the validity of suspension order. At the stage of

suspension, the correctness of allegations is not required to be looked

into. The public interest is also an element on the consideration of

which an employee can be placed under suspension. This is within the

province of the Disciplinary Authority to decide, whether an employee

is required to be suspended or not, because suspension is a step

towards ultimate result of an investigation or an inquiry.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "M. Paul Anthoni v.

Bharat Gold Mines Limited" 1999 (3) SCC 679 has held in para 26

that:-

"26. To place an employee under suspension is an

unqualified right of the employer. This right is

conceded to the employer in service jurisprudence

everywhere. It has even received statutory recognition

under service rules framed by various authorities,

including Govt. of India and the State Governments.

(See: for example, Rule 10 of Central Civil Services

(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. Even under

the General Clauses Act, this right is conceded to the

employer by Section 16 which, inter alia, provides that power to appoint includes power to suspend or

dismiss."

9. Further, in the matter of "Union of India and another v. Ashok

Kumar Aggarwal" 2013 (16) SCC 147, in para 22 and 27, it has been

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:-

"22. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be

summarised to the effect that suspension order can

be passed by the competent authority considering

the gravity of the alleged misconduct i.e. serious act

of omission or commission and the nature of

evidence available. It cannot be actuated by mala fide,

arbitrariness, or for ulterior purpose. Effect on public

interest due to the employee's continuation in office

is also a relevant and determining factor. The facts of

each case have to be taken into consideration as no

formula of universal application can be laid down in

this regard. However, suspension order should be

passed only where there is a strong prima facie case

against the delinquent, and if the charges stand

proved, would ordinarily warrant imposition of major

punishment i.e. removal or dismissal from service, or

reduction in rank etc.

27. Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out

of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the

proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim

measure in aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the

delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position. More so, at this

stage, it is not desirable that the court may find out as

which version is true when there are claims and

counter claims on factual issues. The court cannot

act as if it an appellate forum de hors the powers of

judicial review."

10. Rule 23 of CCA Rules, 1966 provides for a departmental appeal

against the order of suspension of the employee to the State

Government, which reads as under:-

"23. Orders against which appeal lies.- Subject to the

provisions of Rule 22, a Government servant may prefer an

appeal against all or any of the following orders, namely-

(i) an order imposing any of the penalties specified in

Rule 10 whether made by the disciplinary authority or

by any appellate or reviewing authority;

(ii) an order enhancing any penalty, imposed under

Rule 10;

(iii) [an order of suspension made or deemed to have

been made under Rule 9;]

Explanation. - In this rule the expression "Government

servant" includes a person who has ceased to be in

Government service."

11. It is settled law that the order of suspension is not that of punishment.

The requirement of the law is that the reason should be there in the order of suspension. In the present case, the reason for the

suspension of the petitioner is mentioned that, she demanded Rs.

500/- as bribe from the complainant Smt. Amisha for correction of birth

certificate of her daughter, which was found prima facie correct in

preliminary enquiry, which amounts to misconduct under the CCA

Rules, 1966 and Conduct Rules, 1965. The petitioner is having

specific remedy of appeal before the State Government as provided

under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules.

12. In view of the foregoing analysis and also in the facts and

circumstances of the present case, this Court does not find any mala

fide or arbitrariness in passing the suspension order and further is of