Suspension grievance must be decided by the competent authority through a reasoned order after comprehensive representation.

The petitioner, a Ward Boy posted at the Community Health Centre, Bilaigarh, was placed under suspension by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, through an order dated 21 July 2026.

The suspension followed allegations against him and a preliminary inquiry in which he was issued notice and his statement was recorded.

The petitioner alleged that, despite requesting it, he was not supplied with a copy of the preliminary inquiry report.

He challenged the suspension order and sought reinstatement, release of salary and consequential benefits, compensation, and production of the relevant records.

During the hearing, however, the petitioner agreed to pursue the matter by submitting a comprehensive representation before the competent authority, including his grievance regarding revocation of suspension.

The State expressed no objection and undertook that such representation would be considered in accordance with law within a time-bound period.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to challenge the suspension order and related grievances through a comprehensive representation before the competent authority?

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation by a reasoned and speaking order within a specified time?

Whether the Court should adjudicate the validity of the suspension order, entitlement to salary and consequential benefits, or compensation at this stage?

The Court applied the procedural principle that where the petitioner agrees to pursue his grievances before the competent administrative authority, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to submit a comprehensive representation and requiring the authority to consider it in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a prescribed period.

The Court expressly kept all questions open and declined to express any opinion on the merits of the suspension, the non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report, the salary claim, or the claim for compensation.

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

The Court noted the petitioner’s grievance that the suspension followed a preliminary inquiry and that the inquiry report had not been supplied to him.

However, since the petitioner’s counsel stated that the petitioner would be satisfied with an opportunity to submit a comprehensive representation, and the State agreed to its consideration, the Court considered it unnecessary to determine the legality of the suspension or the petitioner’s consequential claims at that stage.

To ensure an effective administrative remedy, the Court directed the petitioner to raise all available grounds before the competent authority and required that authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order within the stipulated period.

The petitioner was directed to submit a comprehensive representation, along with a copy of the order, within 15 days.

Upon receipt, the competent respondent authority was directed to consider and decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, within 30 days thereafter.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the petitioner’s claims and that all issues remained open for consideration by the competent authority.