HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER v .rtiiufLdi. WRIT PETmON No. 1364 of2005 : Awadh Ram Dhruv, aged 52 yrs. S/o Kheelavaiirain Dliruv R/o vill. Naliardih, PO Kareily Badi via Rajim Distt. Dhamtari (CG) VERSUS ^ RESPO^TDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, School Education Deptt. D.K.S. Shawaii, Maatralaya, Raipur, CG WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmjTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shn, Satish K. Asmhotri, J. ^ Present: Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate for fhe petitioner. SSiri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lsmyer for the State/respondent. ORALORDER (Passed on 25th dayof Februar)', IQ^) 1. The petitioner impugns the suspension order dated 05.02.2005 (Annexure P/4) and seeks a direction for pa'^'ment ofdues and arreare of salary and allowances for the period, the petitioner was kept under suspension which has admittedly been recognized as the period of service. 2. Tlie admitted facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitipner was placed under suSpension on 27,7.2001 (Anne&ure P/l) on the ^-ound that a challan iu a crumnal case has been filed on 20.7.2001. The petitioner was tried by fhe Special Judge & First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Case No. 5/2001 for fhe offences under section 7 and 13(l)(d) readwith section 13 (2) offhe Preyention ofCoiTuptionAct, 1988. Thepetitionerwasacquittedoffhecharges by the Special Judee' vide order dated 01.09.2004 (Annexur&. P/2^ on merits. After acquittal fi-om fhe criminal charges, the first suspefision order dated 27.07.2001.('Annexure P/l) was revoked and the pericSl iof suspension was treated as service period vide order dated 30.11.2004 (Armexure P/3). 3. Subsequently, againstthe order ofacquittal dated 01.09.2004 (Annexure P/2), the appeal was filed in the High Court which is pendins consideratioa. During pendency oftheappeal,the second suspension order was passed on 22.02.2005 (Annexure P/4) on the ground that appeal is pending consideration. Hence, this petition seeking quasliini ^ . ' ofthe second suspension ordef and for consequential reliefs. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner subrmts fhat in light ofthe judgment and order passed in Parmqnand.v. State ofChhattisgarh and others , the petitioner cannot be suspended during pendency ofappeal as the susper.sion is required during investigation, enquiry or triai under provisions of section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Controland Appeal) Rules, 1966. 5. 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 eonsideration before the Appellate Court, it is necessary to place the petitioner under suspension. 6. I have heard leamed counsel appearing'for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is apparent that the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 27.07.2001 (Annexure P/I)""aurmg criminal trial and after acquittal from fhe charges vide order dated 01.09.2004 (Annexure P/2), suspension order was revokedvide order dated30.Il.2004 (Annexure P/3)treatmgtheperiod of siispension as service period. The subsequent suspension on the basis that the appeal is pending consideration before the Appellate Court, is illega!. 7. This Court, in the matter ofParmanand(supra)miegsed to suspension during pendency ofthe appeal, observed as unaer: "9.....Even otherwise, on merits, a Govemmeat employee ean be placed under euspension under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, whei'e a case agaitist him in respect of aiiy criminal offence is uader investigatioii, inquin' or trial. In the case oa hand, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were acquitted in,the Sessions Court, and as sucli, no investigatioii, inquity or tria! is pending against them. On the ground of pendency of criminal appeal and criminal revision in the Higli Court, fhe respondent Nos. 5 and 6 cannot be put under suspeiision. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner cannot be denied the salary for fhe period of suspension i.e. 27.7.2001 to 03.11.2004 wliich was revoked by order dated 30.11.2004 (Annexure P/3) as the order itself indicates that the period was treated as service period. The second suspension order is bad in law and contrarv' to the statutory provisions. Thus, the order dated 22.02.2005 (Annexure P/4) is quashed. 9. Accordmslv. the Detition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. 10. Coiisequently, M(W)P No. also stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge -. ' S.£EUL