Santosh Kumar Narang vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Narang, a government servant, filed a writ petition challenging a second order of suspension dated 19.06.2026/19.08.2026. He was initially placed under suspension on 04.09.2025. The impugned suspension order was issued after a charge-sheet was filed against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner sought quashing of the suspension order, reinstatement, and treatment of the suspension period as duty with consequential benefits. The State contended that the impugned order was not a second suspension in the context of the relevant rule, but rather a fresh suspension based on the filing of a criminal charge-sheet.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of suspension was not a second suspension in the context of Rule 9(5)(b) of the CCA Rules, 1966. The Court found that Rule 9(1)(b) of the CCA Rules, 1966, empowers the competent authority to place a government servant under suspension when a case against him in respect of any criminal offense is under investigation, inquiry, or trial. The first proviso to Rule 9(1) mandates suspension when a challan for a criminal offense involving corruption or moral turpitude is filed. The Court noted that the impugned order was passed after a charge-sheet/challan was filed in a criminal case against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, thus squarely falling within the ambit of Rule 9(1)(b). The Court distinguished the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, stating it dealt with a different factual and legal situation. Consequently, the Court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order of suspension, being the second such order, is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with Rule 9(5)(b) of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (CCA Rules, 1966)? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that since he was suspended for the second time, Rule 9(5)(b) of the CCA Rules, 1966, which deals with subsequent orders of suspension, should have been complied with. Failure to do so renders the impugned order illegal. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgment in Ritu Surange v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others. Revenue/State's argument: The State contended that the impugned order cannot be treated as a second suspension for the purpose of Rule 9(5)(b). It was argued that the order was passed under Rule 9(1)(b) of the CCA Rules, 1966, independently, due to the filing of a criminal charge-sheet. The State further argued that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner dealt with a different factual scenario involving a departmental inquiry and was therefore not applicable.