Second suspension under Rule 9(1)(b) remains valid upon filing a criminal charge-sheet.

The petitioner, an Excise Sub-Inspector, was initially placed under suspension by order dated 4 September 2025.

Subsequently, after a charge-sheet/challan was filed against him before the competent criminal court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the respondents passed a further suspension order dated 19 June 2026/19 August 2026 under Rule 9(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (“CCA Rules”).

The petitioner challenged the subsequent suspension, contending that it was a second suspension and therefore attracted Rule 9(5)(b) of the CCA Rules.

The State contended that the impugned order was independently issued under Rule 9(1)(b) because of the filing of the criminal charge-sheet and could not be treated as a second suspension for the purposes of Rule 9(5)(b).

Whether the subsequent suspension order, issued after filing of a criminal charge-sheet against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, was validly passed under Rule 9(1)(b) of the CCA Rules?

Whether the fact that the petitioner had earlier been suspended attracted Rule 9(5)(b), thereby invalidating the subsequent suspension order in the absence of compliance with that provision?

Whether the decision in Ritu Surange v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, W.A. No. 215 of 2022, governed the present case?

The Court applied Rule 9(1)(b) of the CCA Rules, which authorises the competent authority to place a government servant under suspension where a criminal case against him is under investigation, inquiry, or trial.

The first proviso to Rule 9(1) further mandates that a government servant shall invariably be suspended when a challan for a criminal offence involving corruption or moral turpitude is filed against him.

The Court also considered Rule 9(5)(b), relied upon by the petitioner in relation to a second suspension, but held that its applicability depends on the legal basis and circumstances of the subsequent suspension.

The Court distinguished Ritu Surange v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, W.A. No. 215 of 2022, decided on 16 June 2022, as concerning a different factual and legal situation involving suspension in connection with a departmental charge-sheet.

The Court found that the impugned suspension was passed after filing of the criminal charge-sheet/challan under the Prevention of Corruption Act before the competent criminal court.

Consequently, the case fell squarely within Rule 9(1)(b), and the first proviso made suspension mandatory where the criminal offence involved corruption.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the order was invalid merely because it followed an earlier suspension.

It held that the two suspension orders had to be examined with reference to the provisions under which they were issued; the impugned order was an independent exercise of power under Rule 9(1)(b), prompted by the initiation of criminal proceedings.

Since Ritu Surange concerned a materially different situation involving a departmental proceeding, it did not control the present case.

The Court therefore found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

The earlier suspension did not, in the circumstances, render the subsequent order a legally impermissible “second suspension” under Rule 9(5)(b).

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and no relief of quashing, reinstatement, or consequential service benefits was granted.