3. 4. Dr. Rajesh K'tuaar Bakshi, S/o. Shri B.L.Bakshi, aged about 61 years, R/o. Bakshi Nursing Hom.e, Kabirdliam, Kawaidha (CG) State of Chhattisgar3i, through the Secretary, Healfh. aad Faiaily Welfare Departmeiit, Mantrataya, ~ D.K.S.Bhawaa, Raipur (CG) Du'ector, Healfh. Services, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, Barran Bazar, Raipiir (CG) The CoUector, Kabirdham (CG) Chief Medical aiid Health Of&cer, KawaEdha (Kabirdham) (CG) WSaf PETITION UKDERARTICLB 226 OFTHE Shri Utkarsh Verma, counsel for ftte petitioner. '" i.Shri Yashwaat Singh Thakm-, Dy. Advocate General for fhe State. ^11.04.2009) The brief facts, in nutshell, are fhat the petitioner was workiag as Medical Officer ia th.e ofBce ofthe ChiefMedical -2— ^ -F aad Healtli Of&cer, Kawardba. A charge sheet was filed agaiast tmn and two ofhers for coniaussion of fh.e offence under fhe provisions ofSection 7, l3(1) (d) read wifh Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruptioa Act, 1988. Consequently, tbe petitioner was placed iinder suspension by order dated 17.07.2002 (Annexure P/l). After trial, by judgment dated 30.06.2006, passed in Special Case No. 01/2002, tlie petitioner was acquitted iroia the charges. After acquittal i& fhe above crimiaal case, the petijioner subiaitted the application for joiaing on. 4.10.2006 (Aanexure P/3) which was forwarded to fb.e Secretary, Departaient of Health. & Famfly Welfare, RaiptU- C.G, by letter dated 7.10.2006 (Aimexure P/4), The petitioaer also raade various representatious but his suspension was not revoked. 2. Learaed counsel appearuig fer fb.e petitioner submits fhat ftie petittoner is going to attaia the age of superaanuation. on 31.07.2009. He further submits fhat case of fhe petition.er is squa.rely covered by fh.e judgment aud order dated 30th Januaty 2008, passed in W.P. (S) No. 6010/2007 (U.K.Kutmitra Vs. State of C.G. & Others) (Annexure P/5) aad fhe judgment aad order passed by this Court in [Dhaneshwar Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgacb. & Anotlier, (2007(l)M.P.H;T.54(CGj] where the relevant rule 9 of-the Clihattisgarh Civfl Services (Classi&cation, Control aad Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for -short, Rules 1966} was in issue. It was held fhat "Rule 9 of tiie Rules 1966 provides for suspension where a case agamst fhe em.ployee ia respect of auy crimiaal offence is under iavestigation, inquiry or tnal. Since the petitioner has beea acquitted iu fb.e crimiaal trial, suspension is not necessary to keep away fhe eiuployee from the work in order to ensure smoofh. disposal c MVV, •;>- of iavest^ation or trial. In the case of appeal, fhere is no question of aay fresh evidence or deposition, which caa be influenced by fhe petitioner or further records can be tampered with." Thus, the impugned suspension order was quashed and fhe petition was allowed. 3. Leanied couiisel appearuig for fhe respoadents/State fairly subiaits th.at the facts and issue iavolved ui fhe preseut case is squarely covered by the above cited judgnients ia Dhaaeshwar Soni and U.K.Kulmitra (supra). 4. !n view of the foregoing, the unpugned suspension order dated 17.07.2002 (AiuiexuTe P/l) is quashed aud the petition is aUowed. Tlie petitioner is entitled to aU fhe coiisequential benefits Qowiug froia fhis order. No order as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1111.il