Competent authority must independently decide the representation seeking suspension revocation and reinstatement within 30 days.

The petitioner, a Personal Assistant in the Directorate of Medical Education, Chhattisgarh, was placed under suspension by order dated 19.06.2025 following registration of FIR No. 38/2025 by EOW/ABC, Raipur.

He was subsequently granted bail by the High Court on 11.11.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 9006 of 2025.

Alleging that the investigation had remained pending for more than one year and that his suspension had not been revoked, the petitioner submitted representations seeking revocation of suspension and reinstatement.

Respondent No. 1 issued a letter dated 16.07.2026 to Respondent No. 3 directing further proceedings concerning revocation of the suspension and reinstatement, but no consequential decision was taken.

The State submitted that any pending representation would be considered and decided in accordance with law within a reasonable period.

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation seeking revocation of the suspension order dated 19.06.2025 and reinstatement in service.

Whether the High Court should itself set aside the suspension order or direct reinstatement on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.

The Court applied the principle that a competent administrative authority must consider and decide a pending representation in accordance with law, applicable service rules and instructions, and on its own merits.

In exercising writ jurisdiction, the Court may issue a time-bound direction for consideration of such representation without adjudicating the underlying merits, particularly where the decision-making authority has not yet taken a final decision.

The competent authority must independently assess the relevant facts and cannot treat the Court’s direction as an expression of opinion on entitlement to revocation of suspension or reinstatement.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s suspension arose from a criminal case, that he had subsequently been granted bail, and that his representations remained undecided despite the passage of time and the communication issued by Respondent No. 1.

Since the State did not oppose consideration of the pending representation, the Court confined its intervention to ensuring an administrative decision rather than examining whether suspension should actually be revoked.

Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 was directed to consider the representation, the circumstances of the case, and the letter dated 16.07.2026, and to take an independent decision in accordance with law.

The Court expressly refrained from determining the merits of reinstatement or revocation of suspension.

Respondent No. 3, being the competent authority, was directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation for revocation of the suspension dated 19.06.2025 and reinstatement in service, in accordance with law and on its own merits, preferably within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits and that the authority must take an independent decision under the applicable rules and instructions.