Goverdhan Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as Class IV employee under the respondent No.1. On certain allegations he was suspended on 25.02.2019. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was also issued against him on 18.06.2021 and the departmental enquiry is still going on. However, even after completion of 90 days from the date of his suspension, no order of extension of his suspension has been issued by the respondents.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, submits that the case of petitioner is squarely covered with the judgment passed by this Court on 14.12.2023 in the bunch of writ petitions bearing Writ Petition (S) No.9074 of 2023 (Kishore Kumar @ K. Kumar Vs.

¶18

2

¶19

State of Chhattisgarh & Others) , therefore, the present petition may also be disposed of in the light of decision rendered in the case of “ Kishore Kumar @ K. Kumar ” (supra) and the respondents may also be directed to allow this petition.

¶20

Mr. S.P Kale, Additional A.G. appearing for the State on instructions fairly submits that as of now no order of extension of suspension has been passed by the respondents authority.

¶21

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

¶22

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that as of now, no order of extension of suspension has been issued by the respondents, it appears that this petition is squarely covered with the judgment passed in the case of “ Kishore Kumar @ K. Kumar ” (supra).

¶23

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

¶24

"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 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

¶25

3

¶26

is clear that if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, an order of extension of the suspension must also be passed.

¶27

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

¶28

Since, the matter is squarely covered with the judgment passed in the case of “ Kishore Kumar @ K. Kumar ” (supra) and this Court has also observed that after lapse of 90 days from the date of suspension of the petitioner, no order of extension of suspension has been passed, therefore, on this ground the present petition is allowed.

¶29

Accordingly, the order dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure P/1) is set-aside. The respondents 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.

¶30

Sd/(Arvind Singh Chandel) JUDGE

¶31

Abhigya.S

Goverdhan Lal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goverdhan Lal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devendra Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganeshwar Prasad Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Shashilata Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mr. Chiranjeev Koshale Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Kartik Ram