Partly allowed

Lekhram Matra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Feb 2024WPS/1105/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order suspending a school lecturer after 90 days without an extension order. Relying on Kishore Kumar, the court directed immediate reinstatement, clarifying that suspension extends only 90 days unless extended via reasoned order after a charge-sheet.

What did the court decide?

The impugned suspension order dated 20.01.2023 is set aside, and the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner's services forthwith.

Lekhram Matra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 1105 of 2024

¶5

Lekhram Matra S/o Late Makhan Lal Matra Aged About 50 Years Working As Lecturer, Govt. M.L.B. Girls Higher Secondary School, Rajnandgaon, Block Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), Presently Posted As In-Charge Principal, Eklavya Model Residential School Pendri, Rajnandgaon, Block Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

Under Secretary Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sakshi Goyal, Panel Lawyer

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

ORDER ON BOARD

21/ 0 2 /2024

Heard.

1 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was originally appointed as Lecturer and posted at Maharani Laxmi Bai Girls Higher Secondary School, Rajnandgaon. Thereafter, on 01.12.2022, he has been posted as an In-charge Principal of Eklavya Model Residential School Pendri, Rajnandgaon. On the basis of certain allegations made against the petitioner, he was placed under

¶19

¶20

suspension vide order dated 20.01.2023. Subsequently, a chargesheet was issued on 27.03.2023 vide Annexure P/3. The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer have also been appointed, but there is no progress in departmental enquiry proceedings even after completion of 90 days from the date of suspension and no order of extension of suspension has been issued by the respondents.

¶21

2 According to the counsel for petitioner, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions being leading case Writ Petition (S) No. 9074 of 2023 (Kishore Kumar @ K. Kumar v/s State of Chhattisgarh & Others) , therefore, the present petition may be disposed of in the light of decision rendered in the case of “ Kishore Kumar @ K. Kumar ” (supra) and impugned order of suspension may be set-aside and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the services of the petitioner.

¶22

3 Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that, though the matter is squarely covered by the order passed in the matter of “ Kishore Kumar @ K. Kumar ” (supra), but she is unable to make any statement regarding issuance of any order of extension of suspension.

¶23

4 I have heard the contentions put-forth by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record with due care.

¶24

5 In the case of “ Kishore Kumar @ K. Kumar ” (supra), this Court had observed in para 12 & 15 as under :

¶25

"12. Analysing the language expressions including the punctuation used by their Lordships, it can be categorically stated that the main clause, being mandatory and the two sub-clauses, distinctly marked with the help of the punctuation semi colon (;) and the insertion of the conjunction ‘if’ to being with the two sub-clauses, clearly indicate that the direction in entirety is continuous in nature and is contained within 90 days essentially. Therefore, it clearly shows that

¶26

¶27

the currency of 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. Meaning thereby, serving of memorandum of charges/charge-sheet within 90 days of suspension is mandatory. Further, it is also clear that if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension. In view of this Court, in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Versus Union of India through its Secretary, (2015) 7 SCC 291, the intent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is clear that if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, an order of extension of the suspension must also be passed.

¶28

In conclusion, it is held that order of extension of suspension must be passed within the period of 90 days of the suspension. . . . . . "

¶29

6 Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and on examination of facts, it is clear that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 20.01.2023. Though a charge-sheet was issued, but even after completion of 90 days of suspension, no order of extension of suspension has been issued by the respondents as submitted by the counsel for petitioner, therefore, the matter of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed in the case of “ Kishore Kumar @ K. Kumar ” (supra).

¶30

7 Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) is set-aside. The respondent s are directed to reinstate the services of the petitioner forthwith. However, it is made clear that if the respondents desire, they may continue with the departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner in accordance with relevant rules and law.

¶31

Sd/(Arvind Singh Chandel) JUDGE

¶32

ved

Lekhram Matra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekhram Matra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lal Bahadur Singh Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Kumar Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Pooja Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kumari Roshni Bandheya (Minor) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sangeeta Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishna Kant Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh