Dismissed¶31

Mukesh Kumar Sav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Aug 2025WPS/1894/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPS No. 1894 of 2023, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 11.08.2025 by Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad; writ petition under Article 226 challenging suspension order dated 12.10.2022 of Sub-Engineer, Nagar Panchayat Bhairamgarh (Bijapur); petitioner cited Ajay Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291 on 90-day suspension limit and pending charge sheet; Court found case relates to corruption with departmental enquiry contemplated, upheld suspension, dismissed petition, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The Court did not find the present case a fit one to interfere with the suspension order passed against the petitioner. ¶30

Mukesh Kumar Sav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

ALFIZA Digitallysigned byALFIZABAIG BAIG Date:2025.08.1417:27:45+0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:40243

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1894 of 2023

¶7

Mukesh Kumar Sav S/o Shri Doaman Sav, Aged About 30 Years Than Posted As Sub - Engineer Nagar Panchayat, Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur, R/o House No. 384, Ayodhyapuri, Jailgaon, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Director, Urban Administration And Development Department Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - The Collector, Bijapur, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - The Joint Director, Urban Administration And Development Department Of Chhattisgarh, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - The President / Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Bhairamgarh, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :- Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate For State :- Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. Govt. Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order On Board

11.08.2025

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and by way of which the petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:-

¶22

That, this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to call for the records pertaining to the suspension of the petitioner by the respondents.

¶23

That, the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the respondent be set-aside/quashed.

¶24

That, the petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner to the post he was before the suspension.

¶25

That, any other relief deemed to be %t sought by the Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that he has challenged the suspension order (Annexure P/1) passed on 12.10.2022, as, in the light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Choudhary Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another (2015), 7 SCC, 291 has held that suspension period cannot be extended up to 90 days or as the case may be. He also submits that the charge sheet is yet to be issued against the petitioner. The suspension order of the petitioner is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶30

Considering the overall aspects of the case, I do not find the present case as the fit case to interfere with the suspension order passed against the petitioner, however, according to the petitioner the chargesheet is yet to be issued against him, but, considering the fact that a case relates to Corruption and departmental enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner, as such, the petitioner’s suspension order has rightly been passed by the respondents and the same is not required to be interfered with, at this stage

¶31

Accordingly, the present petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶32

No order as to cost(s). sd/-

¶33

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶34

alfiza

Mukesh Kumar Sav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Sav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhruw Kumar Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ballu Ram Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Lalita Vs South Eastern Coalfield, Limited

Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sunita Mahesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh