Allowed

Shyam Sundar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Feb 2024WPS/714/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A suspended driver challenged his suspension order, arguing that over 90 days had elapsed without any extension of the suspension despite a pending departmental enquiry. Relying on its earlier decision in Kishore Kumar, the court allowed the petition, set aside the suspension and directed reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Suspension order dated 07.12.2022 set aside; petitioner reinstated forthwith; departmental enquiry may continue per rules.

Shyam Sundar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 714 of 2024

¶5

Shyam Sundar Singh S/o Late Shri Ishwar Singh Aged About 43 Years R/o Shivghat, Old Sarkanda, Mata Chaura, Bilaspur, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

---- Petitioner Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Diwan, Dy. G.A.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

ORDER ON BOARD

07/ 0 2 /2024

Heard.

The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2022 (Annexure P/1), whereby the services of the petitioner have been placed under suspension.

¶18

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as Driver under the respondent No.3. On allegation of unauthorized absence, he was suspended vide order dated 07.12.2022. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was also issued on

¶19

¶20

26.10.2023 and the departmental enquiry is still going on against him. However, even after completion of 90 days from the date of his suspension order, no order of extension of his suspension has been issued by the respondents.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submits that, the case of 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 also be disposed of in the light of decision rendered in the case of “ Kishore Kumar @ K. Kumar ” (supra) and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the services of the petitioner.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the State fairly submits that, if order of extension of suspension has not been passed by the respondents, then only the case of the petitioner would be covered by the order passed in the matter of “ Kishore Kumar @ K. Kumar ” (supra).

¶23

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

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 by the judgment passed in the case of “ Kishore Kumar @ K. Kumar ” (supra).

¶25

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

¶26

"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 subclauses, 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

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

Since, the matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed in the case of “ Kishore Kumar @ K. Kumar ” (supra) and this Court 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 only the present petition is allowed.

¶31

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.12.2022 (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.

¶32

Sd/(Arvind Singh Chandel) JUDGE

¶33

ved

Shyam Sundar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sundar Singh 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

Shri Amirulla Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

B. L. Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Anita Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishna Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devendra Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganeshwar Prasad Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh