Writ Petition against suspension order not maintainable when efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal exists.

The petitioner, an In-Charge Senior Agriculture Development Officer (Class-III employee) posted at Bagbahara, Mahasamund, challenged the suspension order dated 20.05.2026 issued by the District Collector (Respondent No. 3).

The petitioner contended that the Collector was not his appointing or disciplinary authority and thus lacked jurisdiction under the relevant service rules to suspend a non-ministerial employee.

The State countered that the Collector was specifically empowered to suspend Class-III and Class-IV employees via a Government Circular dated 23.05.1996 and raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

1. Whether the District Collector is competent to place a Class-III government employee under suspension under the prevailing rules and circulars

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

Rule 9(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which prescribes that suspension may be ordered by the appointing authority, disciplinary authority, or any authority specifically empowered by the Governor.

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

The established judicial principle that extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy (such as an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner) exists, unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.

The Court examined the petitioner’s claim of jurisdictional error against the State’s reliance on the 1996 Circular. It noted that the State provided a specific legal basis (the Circular) empowering the Collector to suspend Class-III employees, which directly countered the petitioner’s argument of total lack of jurisdiction.

The Court observed that the grievance regarding the competency of the authority involves a factual-legal determination that can be properly addressed through the statutory appellate process provided under the Rules of 1966.

Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory machinery, the Court determined that the matter fell within the rule of discretion where the High Court refrains from entertaining a writ petition in favor of the available alternative remedy of an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner.

The petition was dismissed at the motion stage. However, the Court reserved liberty for the petitioner to approach the competent forum (appellate authority) to seek redressal in accordance with the law.