Bhupendra Kumar Sahu S/O Gokul Prasad Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J

Heard Mr. Akash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State.

By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the enquiry report dated 14.05.2026 submitted by the Committee (Annexure P/2) and the consequential order dated 15.05.2026 issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur, insofar as the same pertains to and affects the petitioner. The petitioner has also questioned the suspension order dated 22.05.2026 (Annexure P/4) and seeks a direction restraining the respondent authorities from initiating any departmental enquiry against him.

Mr. Akash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, an Assistant Grade-II posted in Forest Division, Marwahi, has been subjected to adverse action on the basis of a fact-finding report dated 14.05.2026 and the consequential recommendation dated 15.05.2026 arising out of a complaint alleging misappropriation of ₹14,77,600/- in connection with the purchase of cow dung manure. It is contended that the principal allegations were directed against the then Divisional Forest Officer, Mr. Raunak Goyal, and other senior officials; however, despite being the subject matter of the complaint, the said officer was permitted to participate in the enquiry and contribute to the preparation of the report. Learned counsel would submit that the composition of the committee itself gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, as two members were subordinate to the DFO and the third was his junior, thereby rendering the enquiry unfair and lacking in independence.

Mr. Pandey would further submit that despite material statements and documentary evidence indicating the involvement of higher officials, including the statement of Shri Suresh Kumar Rathore, Forest Guard, the committee granted a clean chit to the officers against whom allegations were made and instead fastened liability upon the petitioner, who neither had any role in disbursement of payments nor derived any pecuniary benefit therefrom. It is argued that there is no evidence linking the petitioner with the alleged misappropriation and that he has been made a scapegoat to shield the actual culprits. It is further contended that the consequential suspension order has been passed mechanically, without assigning reasons and even prior to initiation of any departmental enquiry, thereby demonstrating a predetermined and biased approach. On these grounds, it is urged that the impugned report, recommendations and suspension order are arbitrary, mala fide and liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, would oppose the petition and submit that the impugned actions have been taken pursuant to a fact-finding enquiry conducted by a duly constituted committee, which found prima facie material warranting action against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the suspension order has been passed in accordance with law and forms part of an ongoing departmental process. He would also contend that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy of appeal/representation before the competent authority against the impugned order and, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. As such, no interference is warranted at this stage in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is questioning the fact-finding report dated 14.05.2026, the consequential recommendation dated 15.05.2026 and the order of suspension dated 22.05.2026 passed under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, 'CCA Rules, 1966'). The grievance sought to be raised by the petitioner pertains to matters which are amenable to scrutiny by the competent appellate authority under the statutory framework governing the service conditions of the petitioner.

Since the recommendation/report forming the basis of the impugned action is assailable by availing the remedy provided under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, 1966 and the order of suspension is also appealable under Rule 9 read with Rule 23 of the said Rules, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage, particularly when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to prefer an appeal before the competent appellate authority raising all grounds available to him in law, including those urged in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event such appeal is preferred within the aforesaid period, the competent appellate authority shall consider and decide the same, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a further period of three months from the date of its filing, in accordance with law.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions and all issues are left open to be considered by the appellate authority.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

In view of the above, I.A. No.02, an application for urgent hearing and I.A. No.03, an application for hearing the case during summer vacation, stand disposed of.