KALAM SINGH NARETI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order of suspension dated 10.11.2018 Annexure P-7 passed by the Collector/District Returning Officer North Bastar, Kanker whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension invoking Rule-9 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as CCA Rules).

(2.) The petitioner primarily contested the impugned order on the ground of competency of the authority who has issued the same. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of suspension has been issued on 10.11.2018 and the officer who has issued the suspension order is the District Returning Officer. He submits that the petitioner substantively is an employee of the Forest Department and holds the post of Forester and the alleged misconduct is of 08.08.2018 when the notification for election duties had not been published. Therefore, the alleged misconduct, if any should have been taken note by the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the notification for election programmes was published on 6th of October, 2018 and thereafter the services of the petitioner were placed under election duty. Meanwhile, respondent no.2 has placed the petitioner under suspension. According to the petitioner, once when the election programme had been notified and thereafter if at all if the petitioner had to be suspended or a disciplinary action had to be initiated, it could be done only by the Election Commission and not by the District Returning Officer. He refers to the provisions of Section 28A of the of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in this regard.

(3.) State counsel, on the contrary, opposing the petition submits that the impugned order does not warrant interference at this juncture for the reason that the impugned order clearly refers to the reason under which the petitioner has been placed under suspension. Moreover under Rule -9 the Collector has been notified to place an employee of Class III and Class IV posts under suspension and therefore, it cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.