^ ^^L (^T^ ^y PETITIONER ^y ^"' ......•••••" BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH V W.P.fSlNo. \^^~ /2010 / Bharat Ram Sahu, S/o Bodiram Sahu, aged about 49 years, R/o Balak High School Road, Word No. 4, Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Stateof Chhattisgarh, Through-lts Secretary Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Durg (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer, Patan, Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENTS y • V/^-»»SWI%.. ir*^.'""x' ^ ip^^^^ ltts&B:®te^^.I %?&—€^y ^3?^iy WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1562 of2010 PETITIONER : Bharat Ram Sahu VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Present: Shri R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri T.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on 12th day ofApril, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the orderdated 23.03.2010 (Annexure P/3) whereby the State Government has placed the petitioner under suspension on account of filing challan in special crime No. 2/2010 registered under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (forsftorf 'the Act, 1988') in the Court of Special Sessions Judge, Durg. 2. The indisputable facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was working as Patwari, Patwari Halka No.8, Padmi, District Durg. The Anti Corruption Bureau Police, Raipur, registered a criminal case against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, 1988, on 25.6.2008. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 14.7.2008 (Annexure P/1). Thereafter, on a representation being made by the petitioner, the order of suspension was revoked on 3.2.2009 (Annexure P/2) as there was a delay in investigation and filing of challan. On completion of the investigation, challan was filed in the Court of Special Sessions Judge, Durg. The petitioner was thereafter again placed under /@ suspension vide order dated 23.3.2010 (Annexure P/3). Thus, this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not be suspended on the same grounds once suspension of the petitioner has been revoked. There is no provision for re-suspension under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. Learned counsel relies on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jagbalpur in Az/z Qureshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh & another\ Heard learned counsel, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Rule 9 ofthe Rules, 1966 reads as under: "9(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension— (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b)where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial; Provided that a Government servant shall invariably be placed under suspension when a challan for a criminal offence involving corruption or other moral turpitude is filed against him." There is no embargo on placing the employee under suspension second time when the suspension order passed earlier has been revoked on one orthe otherground. Rule 9 ofthe Rules, 1966. Sub Rule 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1966 provides for placing an employee under suspension where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. In the case on hand, the criminal case was registered against the petitioner and the same is pending trial, which is of serious nature. 1 1989 MPLSR 453 '/" ^ ? -••^] 't ^fc^^ ^ 8. Reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on a decision rendered by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Az/z Qureshi (supra), is misplaced as the invocation of suspension on the ground of inordinate long delay cannot be put in a straitjacket. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case. In the case on hand, the case for having committed offences under the provisions of the Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner and the petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter, having considered the request of the petitioner, the order of suspension was revoked. However, thereafter, challan was filed before the court of Special Sessions Judge, Durg, the petitioner was again placed under suspension vide the impugned order dated23.3.2010 (Annexure P/3), the same cannot be held as unsustainable or illegal. It is well settled principle of law that the suspension is temporary and it does not involve punishment with civil consequences. Suspension means temporary deprivation of the functions not amounting to any reduction of his rank or status. The employee under suspension continues to be a Government Servant, he is not permitted to work keeping in view pendency of departmental enquiry to avoid undue influence in the proceedings of departmental enquiry and likely tampering with the records. The Supreme Court, in P.L.Shah v. Union oflndia2, has considered the nature of suspension and held as under: "6. An order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guilty. It is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated againsthim." (1989) 1 SCC 546 8 m *%, 10. Thus, there is no reason to quash the impugned suspension order dated 23.3.2010 (Annexure P/3). The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. 11. However, having regard to the fact that there should not be undue delay in completion of any enquiry or trial as the employee has to survive on subsistence allowance, and further, if there is an inordinate delay in disposal of the pendingenquiry or trial, the suspension may become a punishment. The respbndent authorities are directed to take necessary steps for conclusion of the trial to avoid inordinate delay as the petitioner is placed under suspension. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Arun