1. In the instant petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 03.09.2026, whereby he has been placed under suspension under Rule 9(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for brevity 'the Rules, 1966'). The allegations against the petitioner relate to financial irregularities concerning payment of electricity bills during the period when he was posted as Block Education Officer, Basna.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the financial transactions in question were dealt with by one Suryakant Mishra, who was entrusted with the financial charge of the office and was responsible for maintaining and producing the relevant vouchers and records. It is submitted that the petitioner had repeatedly directed said Suryakant to produce the records and had also brought the non- production of the vouchers to the notice of the higher authorities. It is further submitted that departmental proceedings had already been initiated against Suryakant Mishra in respect of the very same transactions, which ultimately resulted in an order dated 03.07.2026 directing recovery of Rs.6,23,348/- along with interest and withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect. According to the petitioner, despite these facts, a show-cause notice was subsequently issued to petitioner and, without properly considering his reply, the impugned order of suspension has been passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the fact that the petitioner was subsequently entrusted with the promotional assignment of In-charge District Education Officer, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, vide order dated 10.07.2025, even after the fact-finding inquiry and disciplinary proceedings against Suryakant Mishra had commenced. It is contended that this demonstrates that the respondents themselves had not, at the relevant point of time, treated the petitioner as responsible for the alleged financial irregularity. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Another Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal {(2013) 16 SCC 147} and the High Court of Judicature at Patna in the matter of The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Suresh Jha & Ors. {LPA No.965 of 2008, decided on 20th of April, 2009}.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition. It is submitted that the impugned order is an order of suspension and not an order imposing any penalty upon the petitioner. The allegations relate to financial irregularities involving a substantial amount and the matter is required to be examined in the departmental proceedings. It is further submitted that merely because departmental proceedings were earlier initiated against Suryakant Mishra, the petitioner cannot claim immunity from an independent examination of his own conduct and responsibility.

5. He would further submit that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of appeal provided under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules and the writ petition is not maintainable challenging the suspension order. The allegation against the petitioner includes various factual aspects, which cannot be determined in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this Court cannot examine the correctness of the allegations against the petitioner in the writ petition. He would further submit that the judicial review against a suspension order is very limited, as the suspension does not cast any stigma upon the employee.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

7. In the instant matter, learned counsel for the State has raised a specific objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition as the impugned suspension order is appealable under Rule 23 of the Rules, 1966, however, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not point out the ground for which the writ petition will be maintainable when the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy as provided under Rule 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the reason for which the petitioner has been suspended has already been examined in an enquiry conducted against one Suryakant Mishra and hence the present order impugned is without jurisdiction.

8. Ordinarily, an employee's services can be placed under suspension in the following contingencies:

          a) Where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending.

          b) Where the disciplinary authority was of the prima facie opinion that the employee is engaged in activities prejudicial to the interest and security of the State;

          c) Where the case against him in respect of criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial;

          d) Pending investigation/enquiry into allegations, it is found not desirable to continue the employee in service in public interest;

          e) Such continuation in service during pending enquiry/investigation is likely to prejudice the investigation, trial, enquiry; there is a possibility of tampering of documents, influencing the witnesses, etc;

          f) It is also permissible to suspend an employee if his continuation is likely to cause/encourage indiscipline in the organization.

9. In the matter of "State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty" 1994 (4) SCC 126, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 13 that:-

          "13. It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and 5 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483: 1994 SCC (L&S) 67: (1993) 25 ATC commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity toperpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge."

10. A plain reading of the aforesaid judgments makes it clear that, whether charges are baseless, malicious or vindictive, cannot be gone into at the stage of examining the validity of suspension order. At the stage of suspension, the correctness of allegations is not required to be looked into. The public interest is also an element on the consideration of which an employee can be placed under suspension. This is within the province of the Disciplinary Authority to decide, whether an employee is required to be suspended or not, because suspension is a step towards ultimate result of an investigation or an inquiry.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "M. Paul Anthoni v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited" 1999 (3) SCC 679 has held in para 26 that:-

          "26. To place an employee under suspension is an unqualified right of the employer. This right is conceded to the employer in service jurisprudence everywhere. It has even received statutory recognition under service rules framed by various authorities, including Govt. of India and the State Governments. (See: for example, Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. Even under the General Clauses Act, this right is conceded to the employer by Section 16 which, inter alia, provides that power to appoint includes power to suspend or dismiss."

12. Further, in the matter of "Ashok Kumar Aggarwal" (supra), in para 22 and 27, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:-

          "22. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that suspension order can be passed by the competent authority considering the gravity of the alleged misconduct i.e. serious act of omission or commission and the nature of evidence available. It cannot be actuated by mala fide, arbitrariness, or for ulterior purpose. Effect on public interest due to the employee's continuation in office is also a relevant and determining factor. The facts of each case have to be taken into consideration as no formula of universal application can be laid down in this regard. However, suspension order should be passed only where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent, and if the charges stand proved, would ordinarily warrant imposition of major punishment i.e. removal or dismissal from service, or reduction in rank etc.

          27. Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position. More so, at this stage, it is not desirable that the court may find out as which version is true when there are claims and counter claims on factual issues. The court cannot act as if it an appellate forum de hors the powers of judicial review."

13. In matters of suspension, the exercise of extra-ordinary power of judicial review vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Scope of consideration is limited to the extent of examining the competence of the authority who places an employee under suspension; arbitrary exercise of power; selective suspension; allegations are frivolous/technical in nature; suspension was wholly unwarranted; and there was no application of mind. In matters of suspension, each case has to be examined in the factual background of the given case.

14. Be that as it may, against the order of suspension passed under Rule 9, a Government servant may perfer an appeal to the State Government under Rule 23 of the Rules, 1966 which categorically provides for a departmental appeal against the order of suspension of the employee to the State Government. However, in the case at hand, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner without avialing such remedy has straightaway approached this Court. Rule 23 of the Rules, 1966, reads as under:-

          "23. Orders against which appeal lies.- Subject to the provisions of Rule 22, a Government servant may prefer an appeal against all or any of the following orders, namely-

          ( i ) an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 whether made by the disciplinary authority or by any appellate or reviewing authority;

          (ii) an order enhancing any penalty, imposed under Rule 10;

          (iii) [an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 9;]

          Explanation. - In this rule the expression "Government servant" includes a person who has ceased to be in Government service."

15. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others Vs. Major General Shri Kant Sharma and Another {(2015) 6 SCC 773} has held that when statutory remedy is available, High Court should not entertain the petition.

16. In view of the foregoing analysis and also in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court does not find any mala fide or arbitrariness in passing the suspension order and further is of the opinion that the petitioner does not make out any exceptional case to interfere with his suspension order dated 03.09.2026. (Annexure P/1) invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge his suspension order before the State Government as provided under Rule 23 of CCA Rules, 1966, if so advised.

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

18. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and in case if the appeal is filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and decide the same on its own merits without being influenced any any of the observations made hereinabove.