In a writ petition by a doctor suspended since 2019, the High Court disposed of the matter by directing respondents to reconsider the continuation of suspension within 60 days, relying on Supreme Court guidance regarding extended suspensions.
Direction to respondents to reconsider suspension within 60 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 822 of 2021
Dr. Pratap Singh Kurrey S/o Late Gyan Prasad Kurrey, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Khisora, P.S. And Tehsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Under Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Director, Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
5. Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate For State : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
15.03.2021
1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is the prolonged suspension of the petitioner who is under suspension by an order dated 13.05.2020 w.e.f. 11.11.2019.
2
2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was falsely implicated in a criminal case for an alleged offence under Sections 376 & 450 of the IPC and the criminal case is getting prolonged unnecessarily. Contention of the petitioner is that in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary and Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 the disciplinary authority needs to reconsider the aspect as to whether the petitioner would be continued under suspension or not for the reason that the suspension period by now is about 1 ½ years whereas in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court wants all the cases of suspension which stand extended for a period beyond 90 days, to be reconsidered on the aspect whether there is any necessity for continuing the suspension of the employee.
3. State counsel submits that in the light of the judgment of the supreme Court, the case of the petitioner shall be considered and appropriate decision shall be taken at the earliest.
4. Given the said submission by the counsel for the parties, the writ petition, at this juncture, stands disposed of directing the respondents to take an appropriate decision on the aspect whether the services of the petitioner need continuation of suspension or not in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/P. Sam Koshy Judge
Khatai
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should continue in suspension pending reconsideration of his case.
Whether disciplinary authorities must reconsider suspension orders exceeding 90 days per Supreme Court judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary and AnrApplied¶20
(2015) 7 SCC 291 · Who else cites this
Dr. Pratap Singh Kurrey
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
