HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRTT PETmON No. 1363 of2005 : Ajay Kiimar Yadav, Aged 38 Yrs. S/o Phenirani Yadav R'b Vill. PO & PS Bfaakliar, Tlie. Kumd, Distt. Dhamtari (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Scfaool Education Deptt. D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya, ^Raipur, CG WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITOTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aamhotri. J. ^ Present: Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Paiikaj Slirivastava, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondeat. ORALORDER (Passed on 25th day of February, 2009) 1. The petitioner impugns the suspension order dated 05.02.2005 (Annexure P/4) and seeks a direction for payment ofdues and arrears of salary and allowances for flie period, the petitioner was kept under suspeasion which has admittedly bsen recognized as the period of service. 2. The admitted facts, in nutshell/as projected by the petitioner are tliat the petitioner was placed under suspension on 27.7.2001 (Annexure P/l) on the ground that a challan in a criminal case has been filed on 20.7.2001. Tlie petitioner was tried by the Special Judge & First Additional •\ Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Case No. 5/2001 for the offences under section 7 and 13(I)(d) read with section 13 (2) ofthe.Prevention ^ofCormption Act, 1988. The petitioner was acquitted ofthe chai-ges by ^* ... . >~ •• ' the Special "Judge vide order dated 01.09.2004 (Annpxure P/2) on merits. After acquittal from the criminal charges, tfae first suspension order dated 27.07.2001 (Anaexure P/I) was revoked and the periodi of 6. suspension was treated as service period vide order dated 30.11.2004 (Annexure P/3). Subsequently, agaiastthe order ofacquittal dated 01.09.2004 (Annexure P/2), the appeal was filed in the High Court which is pending consideration. During pendency ofthe apgeal, the second suspension order was passed on 22.02.2005 (Annexure P/4) on the ground that appeal is peadmg consideration. Hence, this petition seeking quashing ^ ofthe second suspension order and for consequential reliefs. Leamed counsel appearfng forthe petitioner submits that in light ofthe judgment and order passed in Parmanand v. State ofChhattisgarh and others , the petitioner cannot be suspended during pendency of appeal as fhe suspension is required during investigation, enquir)' or trial under provisions of section 9 of the CKhattisaarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent submits that since the order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge is pending consideration before fhe Appellate Court, it is necessary to place the petitioner under suspension. I have heard leamed counsel appearingTor the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is apparent tliat tlie petitjoner was placed under suspension by order dated 27.07.2001 (Annexure P/iyatiring crinrinal trial and after acquittal fromtije charges vide order dated 01.09.2004 (Annexure P/2), suspension order was revoked vide order dated 30.11 .2004 (Armexure P/3) treatmg the period 12008 (4)MPHT 71 (CG) lBWi3n l :tiig%lglS11 ofsuspension as service period. The subsequent suspension on the basis that the appeal is pending consideration before the Appellate Court, is illegal. 7. This Court, in the matter ofParmanand (supra) m regard to suspension during pendency ofthe appeal, observed as ynder: "9. ....Evea ofhenvise, on mei-its, a Govemment employee caii be placed under suspension under the provisioiis of Rule 9 ofthe Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966,where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, mquiry or trial. Iii tlie case on hand, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were acquitted in the Sessions Court, aiid a& sueh, no investigatioii, inquiry or trial is pending against them. Oti the ground of pendency of crinunal appeal aiid criminal revision in flie High Court, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 carmot be put under suspeiision." 8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner cannot be denied fhe salary for fhe period of suspension i.e. 27.7.2001 to 03.11.204 vvliich was revoked by order dated 30.11.2004 (Annexure P/3) as the order itselfindicatesthatthe period was treated as service period. The second susperision order is bad in law and contrary to the statutory provisions. Thus, ttie order dated 22.02.2005 (Annexure P/4) is quashed. 9. Accordmgly, the petition is ailowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. 10. Consequently, M(W)P No. 1059 of2005, also stands disposed of. .. Sd/- Sadsh K. Agnihotri Judge - .1