Availability of alternative statutory appeal bars writ jurisdiction against suspension orders passed by competent authority.

The petitioner, a Senior Agriculture Development Officer (Class-III employee) posted at Saraipali, challenged the suspension order dated 20.05.2026 issued by the District Collector, Mahasamund

The petitioner contended that the Collector lacked the jurisdiction to suspend him, as the Collector is neither the appointing nor the disciplinary authority under the relevant service rules

The State countered that under a General Administration Department Circular dated 23.05.1996, the Collector is specifically empowered to suspend Class-III and Class-IV employees

1. Whether the District Collector is competent to place a Class-III non-ministerial employee under suspension under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966

2. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable when an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is available under the service rules

Rule 9(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which mandates that suspension must be ordered by the appointing authority, disciplinary authority, or an authority empowered by the Governor

Circular dated 23.05.1996 issued by the General Administration Department, which delegates suspension powers over Class-III and Class-IV employees to the Collector

Established judicial principle that discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised when an efficacious statutory alternative remedy exists

The Court examined the petitioner’s claim of lack of jurisdiction against the State’s reliance on the 1996 Circular. It noted that the Circular specifically empowers the Collector to exercise suspension powers for Class-III employees in accordance with the 1966 Rules

The Court observed that because the petitioner has a statutory right to appeal the suspension order before the Divisional Commissioner, there were no exceptional circumstances to bypass the prescribed legal machinery

The Court reasoned that the dispute regarding the authority's competency and the merits of the suspension should first be adjudicated by the competent appellate forum provided under the Rules

The Court held that the petitioner must approach the competent appellate authority under the Rules of 1966. Liberty was reserved for the petitioner to avail himself of said appropriate statutory remedy in accordance with the law