HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BII^SPUR .r PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 489 of2008 Smt. Savita Das Vaislmav^ Aged - 45 years, Wife of Sliri Rakesh Das Vaislmav, Presently workmg as - Inspector, At - Poiice Station Mandir Hasoud, District - Raipur (C.G.) R/o Maiidr Hasoud, District - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Departmeiit ofliome, D.K.S. Bhawaii, Raipur. 2, The Inspector General of Police, Raipw Range, Raipur (C.G.) WRFf.PETmON.UNDER.^ARTICLE 26 OF THECONSTnVTIONOF.INDlA SB: Hon'We Shri Satish K. AgmhoM, J. RESPONDENTS •Present: Shri. R,K.Kesharwani,. Advocate^ fi^r the pctitioner. Sliri Alok BaksN, Govenmieiit Advocate fortlie State. / respondeiits. ORALORDER (Passed on 17th day of March, 2008) With the consent ofthe parties. the matter is heard fiiially. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seekmg quashing ofthe impugiied suspension order dated 10.01.2008 (Amiexure P/l) on several grounds, mter-alia, fhe siispension order has been passed to oblige the villagers-as (hey have made some complaisrt against ttie petitioner. This suspension order has been passed with an uiterior motive. 2. At tMs stage, this Court cannot enquire into the alleged allegations with regard to the complamt or the petitioiier was suspeBded to oblige the villagers as the charge-sheet dated 11.02.2008 has already been issued. 3, It is well settled prmciple ofiaw that the suspension m temporary and it does not involve pumshmeiit with civil consequenc^s. Siispesisioii raeans temporary deprivation of the fanctioiis not amounting to any reduction of his raak or statiis. The employee siispension ,z- 1<»^^.. 4. 6. w continues to be a Govenmient Servant, he is not permitted to work keepmg in view pendency of departmenta! enquiry to avoid undue influence m the proceedmgs of departmental enquiry aiid likdy tamperiiig with the records. The Supreme Court, in the matter ofP.LShah Vs. Union oflndia has considered the nature ofsuspension asid lield as Bnder: "6. An order of suspension is not an order imposisig pumslmient 011 a person found to be gailty. It is aii order made against him befbre he is found giiilty to ensure smooth disposal ofthe proceedmgs jaitiated against him. Such proceedings should be completed expeditiously m the public interest aiid also isi the iiiterest of the Govemmeiit servant concemed.. /' At tiiis stage, the petitioner has not made out any case for mterference with the suspensioii order. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all fhe objections, submissions m the departmental enquiry. Thus, this petition is dismissed susimiarily. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge AIR 1989 SC 985