Competent authority must independently decide a timely suspension-revocation representation in accordance with law.

The petitioner, a 61-year-old Teacher, L.B. Grade, posted at Government Upper Primary School, Kadaibedha, District Kondagaon, was placed under suspension by order dated 9 January 2026 passed by the Joint Director, Education Division, Bastar.

She challenged the suspension and sought quashing of the order, reinstatement with consequential benefits, and, alternatively, a declaration that her continued suspension beyond ninety days without service of charges or a reasoned extension order was illegal in light of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India.

During hearing, the petitioner confined her request to permission to submit a fresh representation seeking revocation of suspension and a direction to the competent authority to decide it within a fixed period.

The State expressed that any such representation would be considered in accordance with law, applicable Government circulars and instructions, and the applicable Supreme Court precedent.

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to submit a fresh representation seeking revocation of her suspension?

2. Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation within a stipulated period and in accordance with law?

3. Whether the legality of the suspension order or the petitioner’s entitlement to reinstatement and back wages should be adjudicated in the present proceedings?

The Court referred to the principle laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, concerning the need for timely review of prolonged suspension and the general principle that suspension should not continue indefinitely without appropriate disciplinary progress.

The Court also noted the petitioner’s reliance on Manisha Pathak v. State of Chhattisgarh, W.A. No. 456 of 2022, decided on 9 September 2022.

It applied the procedural principle that, where the petitioner confines the relief to consideration of a representation, the competent authority must independently consider and decide that representation on its merits, in accordance with law and applicable Government instructions.

The Court treated the petitioner’s request as a limited prayer for an administrative reconsideration of her suspension rather than as a request for immediate adjudication of the suspension’s legality.

Since the State agreed that a fresh representation would be considered under the applicable legal framework and Government instructions, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit one.

It expressly refrained from examining the merits of the suspension order, the alleged violation of the ninety-day principle, or the claim for reinstatement and back wages.

The direction was therefore confined to requiring an independent decision by the competent authority within the prescribed time.

The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority within 15 days from 9 September 2026.

If submitted within that period, the competent authority was directed to consider and decide it independently, on its own merits and in accordance with law, preferably within 30 days from its receipt.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the petitioner’s claim and that the competent authority must take an independent decision strictly in accordance with law.