Dr. Dhruvesh Jaiswal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1011 of 2021 Dr. Dhruvesh Jaiswal S/o Shri B. K. Jaiswal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o S. D. O. P. Office, Wadrafnagar, Balrampur, Police Station Basantpur, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home/Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director General Of Police (D. G. P.) Police Headquarters (PHQ), Near Mahanadi Bhawan, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Inspector General Of Police (I. G. P. ) Office Of Inspector General Of Police, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

4. Superintendent Of Police (S.P.), Office of Superintendent of Police, Balrampur, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For State :

Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 15.02.2021

1. The petitioner in the present writ petition has sought for an appropriate direction to the respondents to immediate revoke the order of suspension of the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, he was working on the post of S.D.O.P and

his services were placed under suspension vide order dated 14.10.2020 by the respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the service rules governing the field, the respondents are required to issue a charge sheet to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of suspension whereas in the instant case though more than 90 days have lapsed, the petitioner till date has not been issued with a charge sheet and therefore, under rule 9(5)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the suspension deserves to be revoked. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner also would be covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291.

3. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that more than 90 days have lapsed and also keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondent no.2 to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner for revocation of the suspension order in accordance with law, at the earliest preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

4. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai