IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 7631 of 1989 Date of Decision: February 26, 2009 Mohinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition is directed against order dated 27.1.1989 (P-3) passed by the Director of Public Instructions, Punjab- respondent No. 2, placing the petitioner under suspension. The petition was admitted on 6.6.1989 without any interim direction. In the written statement filed by the respondents the stand taken is that the suspension order was passed after carefully taking into account the report given by the Sub Divisional Officer C.W.P. No. 7631 of 1989 (Civil), Hoshiarpur. According to the report serious allegations have been made against the petitioner concerning disbursement of relief to the in-eligible inhabitants of villages Bhattlan, Janday, Mirjapur, Baranda, Fatehpur and Bhanowal. It has been alleged that the assessment on account of damage suffered by the houses was not based on actual damage of houses and disbursement was made by the petitioner amount to Rs. 59,250/-, 53,750/- 1,05,200/-, 48,250/-, 1,11,625/- and 1,98,125/-. It is alleged that all the aforesaid persons were in-eligible and there was no justification as per preliminary inquiry report received from the Deputy Commissioner. It is well settled that under Rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, suspension can be ordered in three eventualities, namely, when there is an inquiry pending or an inquiry is contemplated or a person has remained in the jail for more than 48 hours. In the present case inquiry is contemplated. Therefore, the suspension order could not be challenged. Moreover, suspension is not a punishment. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the instant petition. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) February 26, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2