g:^ r' J BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BtLASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. (Cl No. ^ 32-0f2011 PETITIONER : /" Mrs. Anita Dhurve, W/o Ishwar Dhurve, aged about 38 ^o . ^)^y ^-^.Mt^- ...-••""^^\';^.1-'-""' ^-"\^.-^-"' years, Occupation-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chheerpani, ^v^^"^--~ ' ^'A® ^ '.&.••••" RESPONDENTS Tahsil-Pandariya, Kabirdhain, (C.G.) Distt. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through-Secretary Department of Panchayat D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Gram Panchayat, Chheerpani, Through-Chief Executive Officer Grama Panchayat, Chheerpani, Tahsil-Pandariya; Distt. Kabirdham (G.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,,:y^^ ^ ^s^'^' ^ ^v ,) CO'[JRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL wRrr pE'rmoN (0 No. 4532 of2oii PETITIONER Mrs. Aaita Dhurve. VERSUS State ofChliattisgarh WRIT PETt'ITON UNDER .W.'I'ICLE 226 OF THE CONSnTUnON OF1NDIA ^i.ssa.e. k.. '•ff^C^yi-j-- 1 ih'Otk/i.ia,. Advocate for the bn P.PC.Bhaduri, Pane! Lawver for" le State/respondeiit No. 1 (Passed on 16 day ofAugust, 2011) lenge in this petition is' to the order dated 03.08.2011 (Amiexure P/l) whereby the petitioner, who is tfae Sarpanch of Gi-am Panchayat Chheraparii, Talisil Pandariya, District Kabirdham, has beeii placed under suspensioa. 2. Shri Venaa, leai-ned counsel appearing for tfae petitioner subinits sd 03.08.2011 has been passed without recording any reason before placing the petitioner under suspension, uader the provisions of section 39 of the Chhdttisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (fbr short 'tke Act, 1993'). Shri Vemia fiirther submits that on certam specific charges, a sfaow cause notice was issued and the petitioner was placed under suspension without recording statement ofwitnesses pr completing fhe enquiry. Law oa tliis issue is very clear. Section 39 (l)(b) ofthe Act, 1993 provides that the presci-ibed authority may suspend aiiy office bearer on whom show cause notice alongwitii charge sheet uader this Aet has been sen'ed for removal fi'om office. Thet-e is no dispute that show cause notice alongvvith charge sheet was issued to the petitioBer which was also replied by the petitioner. Thus, :a3"a,. i 1, placias the petitioner, being an office bearer, under suspension, is m no manner contrary to the provisions oflaw as prescribed under section 39 and 40 oftfae Adhuuyam, 1993. 4. The Siipreme Court, in P.L.Shah v. Union of India , has considered fhe natiu-e ofsuspension and held as under: "6. An order ofsuspension is not an order imposins punishnent on a person found to be guilty. H is aii order made against hini before he is found guiltv to easure smooth disposal ofthe proceedings iiiitiated agamst him. Such proceedings should be completed expeditiously in the public interest aiid also m the mterest offhe Govemment servaat concemed. ....." 5. It is well settled prmciple oflaw that the suspeosion is temporary . and it does not invoive punishment with civil consequences. Suspension means a temporan' deprivation of the functions aot amounting to any reduction of his rarik or his status. The ofBce bearer is not permitted to worlc, keeping in view paidency of eaquiry to avoid undue mfluence in the proceedings ofthe enquiry 6. Applying the wsll settled principles oflaw as enunciated above, to the facte of the iastant case, the petition is berett of merit and is accordinRlv dismissed. Anrit Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge AIR 1963 SC 985