^vv-ie •<e sc'.." / <tB^.<*\\ &' •y PETITIONER RESK)NDENTS WMT PETITION (S) No. 621 of2008 Pratap Singh Namdeo, S/o Late Shri V.N.Namdeo, Aged about 51 years, Presently workmg as : Assistant Engineer (Under Suspension), Public Healtli Engiaeeriag Sub-Division: Chainapa, R/o Barpali Chowk, Champa, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Health Engiaeering Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, District - Raipw (C.G.) 2. Uader Secretary (Awar Sachiv), Public Healtli Engineering Department, DKS Bhawan, Manfralaya, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineerinj Departinent, Block — Champa, Distt.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Shri Maneesh Shanna, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General forthe State/respondents. ORAL' (Passed on 29B1 day of April, 2008) The petitioner, while working as Assistant Engineer, in Public Health and Engineering Depariment, posted at Champa, District Jaajeir- Champa, was served the impugned suspension order dated 16.01.200 (Annexure P/l) wherein tbe allegations to the effect that the petitioner, as Assistant Eneineer, has not submitted the project report in respect of water supply m Champa town and secondly, the petftioner has obtained false No Objection Certificate from flie Syndicate Bank. Qnthat ground, in view of the contemplated enquiry, petitioner was placed under suspensioa Shri Maneesh Sharma, leamed coimsel appearing.for the petitioner submits that the grounds stated in the suspension order is contrary to the facts.^The petitioner has submitted the project report ofChampa town to ^ J^ his senior officer, Executive Engineer and fhe Executive Engineer, in tum has submitted the same to the Superiiitending Engineer on 15.10.2007, much before passing of the suspension order dated 16.01.2008. With regard to the second allegation, the petitioner submite that the petitioner has paid all the dues and the No Objectioa Certificate issued by the Bank was true and correct. Shri Sharma further contends that since the reasons stated inthe suspension order is wilhout any basis, the suspension order deserves to be quashed. Shri Y.S.Thakur, leamed Deputy Advocate Geaeral submits that tfae suspaision order has been amended on 19.03.2008 (Annexure R/l) wherein it was stated that in contemplation ofdepartmental enquiry, the petitioner was deemed to have been suspeaded. Shri Thatar further siibmits that fhe charge sheet and 1fae memo of charges has already been issued on 08.04.2008 (Annexure P/I1). He next submits that the contention of Shri Sharma with regard to the facts are disputed by the respondents and it is subject to enquiry. Shri Sharma has not challenged Ihe issue of memo of charges on the basis of same allegations. Once the charge-sheet has been issued and it is not under challenge on the ground that the allegations in the charge- sheet are false thoueh challenged in case of suspension, the same is admittedly disputed. Even otherwise, the facts are disputed on the basis ofsubmission made by the leamed counse! appeanng for the parties and fhis Court cannot resolve the disputed facts. The petitioner can very well present his case before the departmental enquiry, which is aot under challenge. 5. Under Rule 9 offhe Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Contro! and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules, 1966), any employee can 'SBSS5fS!^SS^.-^ ^t be suspended where the disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending. Looking to the charges stated in the suspension order, it is clear fhat the disciplinafy proceeding is contemplated against the petitioner. 6. The Supreme Court, in the matter of P.L.Shah v. Union of India , has considered fhe nature ofsuspension and held as under: "6. An order of suspension is not an order imposins punishment on a person found to be guilty. It is an order made against him before he is found guitty to ensure smooth disposal ofthe proceedings initiated agahist him. Such proeeedings should be completed expeditiously in the public interest and also in the interest of the Govemment servant concemed. ....." 7. It is well settled principle oflaw that the suspension is temporary and it does not involve punishment with civil consequences. Suspension means a temporary deprivation ofthe fanctions not amounting to aay reduction of his rank or his status. The employee under suspension contmues to be a Govemment servant, he is not permitted to work keeping in view pendency of departmental enquiry to avoid undue mflueace in the proceedin® of departmental enquiry and liksly tampering with on records. At this stage it is not necessary to go into the eharges levelled against the petitioner because it may prejudice the case of the parties wherein the respondents are likely to initiate the dq>artmental enquiry. 8. Applying fhe well settled principles of law as enunciated above, to the facts of the instant case, this petition is dismissed without expressini any opinion on merits ofthe ease. No order asto eosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge aaa..-.,.