The Chhattisgarh High Court, via an order on board, quashed a suspension order dated 21.02.2024 issued against the petitioner. The court held the order illegal as it failed to comply with Rule 17 of the 2018 Service Regulations and lacked proper approval.
The impugned suspension order dated 21.02.2024 is quashed.
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.
Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT
2025:CGHC:4196
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 347 of 2025
... Petitioner(s)
versus
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
23/01/2025
discharged his duties with dedication. Recognizing his commitment and performance, he was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Society Manager. It is submitted that during a General Inspection of the Committee, Umaria, conducted by the Inspection Team of the respondent No. 5, it was found that the petitioner, being Assistant Committee Manager, had issued fake Kisan Credit Cards (KCC) in the names of farmers and transferred Rs. 9,46,000/- to his personal savings account. The petitioner contends that these allegations are baseless and that the impugned order was issued without conducting a proper inquiry. It is submitted that the petitioner, under duress and coercion, was compelled to admit the allegations through his letter dated 15.01.2024 and was forced to refund the alleged amount of Rs. 9,46,000/- to the bank. The petitioner was threatened and pressured into compliance, depriving him of any opportunity to present his defense or contest the accusations. Thereafter in the Committee Directors' Meeting dated 21.02.2024, a resolution was passed to suspend the petitioner with immediate effect, based solely on this forced admission, without conducting a fair inquiry or following due process. The entire process was arbitrary, unjust, and violative of the petitioner's rights. The petitioner has also submitted a representation on 20.05.2024 before Divisional Joint Registrar,
requesting the cancellation of the suspension order and reinstatement in service, but no decision has been taken till date. Despite being under suspension for over nine months, no charge-sheet has been served on the petitioner, nor has been granted any subsistence allowance. This prolonged inaction and denial of subsistence allowance have caused the petitioner severe financial hardship, further compounding the arbitrariness and injustice of the suspension order which is in violation of the law laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the period of suspension in the touch stone of Article 21 has held that the currency of the suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period, the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served delinquent officer/employer. In accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 48(8) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the Board of Directors of the aforementioned cooperative society has been officially superseded. This action was undertaken by the State Government, acting through the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, following careful consideration and evaluation of the prevailing circumstances surrounding the society's management. In light of these developments, the State Government has deemed it necessary
to appoint Mr. Loknath Maheshwari as the prescribed authority to oversee and govern the day-to-day activities of Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit. It is essential to highlight the explicit guidelines set forth in Clause 17 of the 2018 service regulations, which meticulously outline the procedure for suspending an employee within the primary society. This provision underscores that any employee facing suspension for serious misconduct must first obtain prior approval from the Divisional Joint Registrar. This prerequisite not only ensures accountability but also safeguards the integrity of the suspension process. Once the necessary permission is secured, the Board of the Society is empowered. to proceed with the suspension, thereby maintaining a structured and transparent approach to disciplinary actions. This systematic framework reinforces the society's commitment to upholding ethical standards and the principles of natural justice. The rule further states that such order of suspension has to be mandatory be in written format and should also be enclosed in the personal file of the said employee. For ready reference rule 17 (1) has been reproduced below
(C) The board of the society would be competent to issue the orders for suspension.
It is respectfully submitted that the three critical preconditions for issuing a suspension order by the competent authority have not been satisfied in this case. First, the Board of the society, which typically holds the authority to impose such actions, has been dissolved and replaced by the prescribed authority under Clause 49(8) of the Cooperative Societies Act, as previously noted in this petition. Consequently, any suspension order should emanate from the prescribed authority exercising powers under Rule 17, rather than the dissolved Board. Second, the allegations of serious misconduct are unfounded, as neither the inquiry conducted by the District Cooperative Central Bank nor the formation of a three-member committee to investigate irregularities under the Branch Manager's supervision references the present petitioner as a wrongdoer. This absence of mention in both communications clearly indicates that no action is being proposed against the petitioner. Third, the essential requirement of obtaining prior permission from the Divisional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies has been entirely overlooked. Therefore, the suspension order is illegal, executed with mala fide intentions, and is non-est in the eyes of the law, warranting its
quashing. In view of these clear violations of statutory provisions, procedural norms, and principles of natural justice, the petitioner respectfully prays for the quashing of the suspension order dated 21.02.2024. The petitioner also seeks restoration to their rightful position, along with all consequential benefits, to remedy the manifest injustice and harm caused by the unlawful suspension.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge
Raghu Jat
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of suspension against the petitioner was illegal for failing to comply with Rule 17 of the Service Regulations.
Whether the suspension order violated principles of natural justice due to lack of proper inquiry and prior approval.
Whether the impugned suspension order dated 21.02.2024 should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of IndiaReferred¶27
Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lalaram Chandrakar
State Of Chhattisgarh
Amitendra Kishore Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
