/^^ \ ' ' 1 IsfiSfe,. ixi.HC-22 T°? -tlWI<rl'll, »Til^<i6, («i<ii'Hy sni^r •qsw . (-l_rf'C^3 lo?2.1/ ^•'-"-^—-«—^-^ 200 'b ^? ^IHelT StKllch fa'b<{CT" 311^1 ^T Ri-fi.'* sn^r ?t)^f yfia sii^rTOiiwdftH PETITIQNER Ram Sagar Shri Heer: Quarters, L Versts RESPONDENTS 1. State of Ch: Public Wori Bhawan, Rai] 2. The Chief Ei State Bank S lattisgarh, through The Secretary, js Department, Mantralaya, DKS fiur (CG) igineer, P.W.D., Bastar Zone, Near tiuare, Jagdalpur (CG) Writ Petition under Artiele 23 S.B HonTile^hri^hirendraMisHra, J 12.12.2008 Mr. PKC Tiwari, learned Sr. l leariied counsel for the petitioner. Mi-s. Smita Ghai, learned PL The pefitioner was posted Fublic Works Department (BSE R) 26.12.2006. Allegation against th^ tenure as In-charge Execudve bridge was commenced. It is alle^ five spans of six meter each collaps|E of the bridge, which was not got (Superintending Engineer) and 1(1- withput detailed survey and hydra41 <i»l^[<n*ilTTffl'R^ ^ fesil ^f^l'WTC ^T aiPtpT sn^r pharma, aged about 52years Son of jmani Sharma, Resident F-Type (Ibaug Colony, Jagdalpur (CG) 6 oftUe Constitution of India idvocate with Mr. Shashi Bhushan, or the State. |as In-charge; Executive Engineer, pivision) Kanker from 7.10.2005 to petitioner is that during his above ^ngineer, construction of medium •d that the mediuin bridge having 'd due to faulty drawing and design approved by the competent officer he constn-iction was commenced lic calculation. -—^ ^'^^-•" //^ f:'& !f 'S^fSSS'SSsi. 11, ^ ^^- '"ii'Ba—»a's'i -HC-22 'S^I •<ii<ii<-t<i, s-nl'M'is, Icxni+iy •<IIMI ai*ii<o sii^r iRra? ^.1*')??A3..A.^2.^..^ 200<'b I^^ST' SD^I^T h-\ sn^r st)*iieti v^ .^y 311^[ ^giWHfSff z- By the instant petition.the pi Annexure P/l dated 15.9.2008 wh| c»»i<ilfd<i1'ri*iHfff^ fel<il <f^i'(-dl< ^; 3l)?OT SII^I ititioner has impugned the order of sreby he has been suspended with immediate effect by the resporidenf |No. 1. Mr. PKC Tlwari, leamed Sr. ^dvocate with Mr. Shashi Bhushan, leamed counsel appearing for the J)etitioner submitted that the works in the Public Works Department ar^ carried out in accordance with the Public Works Departanent Manual and in the instant case, the person who accorded sanction is to be he|ld responsible. The petidoner was engaged as In-charge Execytive En^ineerfor a brief period at the initial stage of construction, the subsequ|entconstruction was completed by the successor Executive Engineejr of the division; the work was enfrusted to a contractor under excavation and base concrete wasl petitioner, whereas construction 4 executed during the tenure of his| Sub Divisibnal Officer is respQnsib) petitioner is only a supervisory au) order of Arinexure P/l does r) the performance guarantee. Only executed during fhe tenure of the tf abutinents, piers and slabs was successor officers. The In-charge le for execution of the work and the )±iority. It was also argued that the |ot specifically mention that any disciplinary proceeding is conte|raplated or pending against the petitioner or any criminal offence i ^ under investigation, and therefore, the order of Annexure P/1 is not ^ustainable under Rule 9 of CG Civil Services (Classification, Control | and Appeal) Rules, 1966 which provides that any officer can be jout under suspension only pending enquiry. Heard learned counsel'for thls petitioner. -•:-ss^ SXI-HC-22 "-^ig. 'S^t -^WW^, wSwie, hwwy. sni^r •q?ra? *11*ICTI g,^j<:(,——————•-————""^p^ 200 % 'I^^T' 311^1 ^iT Pt-ii.'* aii^r »*ilct)^if&a ^f 311^1 ?^ITW?lf?(T Sq far as the argument that |specifically mention that the petiti |any proposed enquiry, is cpncern< jorder, it is evident that copy of Ifonvarded to the Engmeer-in-Chif |suspension order, prepare charge-; IState within a week. So far as other argument that sancdon should be held responsibl] not be proceeded by successor technical sanction and the .guarantee for a period of 36 morj work, is concemed, fhe petitioner ayailp.ble to him in his reply to the order of suspension. At this stage, to consider the'above defences oftN A larger Bench of the Hon'b) V.B. Gidroniya Vs. The State oj reported in 1970(1) SCC 362, dea| an employee pending department under: "8. ............... The law oA reviewed in Balvantray Maharashtra. Therein the tet The general principle is tha^ employee pending an enquiry\ ^RT^i<i1i *i)*i<yff^ fs^ ^^l< ^i SfFfl*T 411^1 t|he order of Annexure P/ 1 does not i|)ner has been suspended pending |d, from perusal of the impugned suspension order has also been E'with a direction to execute the theet and forward the same to the the person who accorded technical for the work and that work could |Executive Engineer without prior contt'actor has executed perfbrmance jths beyond the completion of the is at liberty to take such defences ;harge-sheet, which is to follow the is neither desirable nor necessary :: petitioner. Supreme Court in the matfer of SSadhya Pradesh and another, ing with the issue of suspension of :nquiry or proceedings observed as the subject was exhaustively ^dtilal Patel Vs. State of al position was stated thus : an employer can suspend an 'nto his misconduct. ^. XI-HC-22^ j——~. TSf '<<l<<l<")'tl; ^•ui^'ic, fqfii'yy t^.. .--i V3^ 31T^?T XRq? •^^ ts^ L°l 2 ^ t|IW-IT aiHKh "g^ 200 cb fa^r" sn^i^r k-U^ St^f ?ffl ^ff sn^i'g^iiwH^f The Hon'ble Supreme Court ii ^ptty of Netgpur, Civil Lines, Nagp |ancf others; reported in 1981 (2) bcope of interference in the case ofi\ disciplinaiy enquiry, observed as ur^ iji the matter of Corporation ofthe >(!<r and another Vs. Ramchandra SCC 714, while dealing with the [suspension from service pending a Ider; ' "4..........In the aforesaid casej pending a disciplinary enquin^ fall within the ambit ofthe wi ofreasoning, therefore, thepl<^ of Section 59(3), as extracted\ to the conclusionthat the Mun fully competent to suspend tl department enquiry and henci passed against the respon^ent Commisswner does notsuffer Further, in the matter of Staj Pdrdshad Das, reported in 1985 \ 'ourt observed as under: "3. .An' order of suspen) gbvemment servant pending\ neither one of dismissal no\ within Article 311 ofthe Con^ clearly laid down by a Consff m, Moham.mad Ghause Vs. unfortunate that this decisio^ notice of the leamed Judges fl) of Article 311 will get atti^ who is a m.em.ber of Givil Sei^ India Service or a Civil Servi holds SL civil post under 'dismissed' or 'removed' frorr^ the said clause have' no <fri^^l'f »Ii*)^f"^ f^^ ^R$R ^; •Sli^OT SII^t suspension from service has clearly been held to >rd 'control'. On a parity in language ofClause (b) above, irresistibly leads icipalGomwiissioner was 'e respondent pending a the order ofsuspension by the Municipal 'rom any legal infirmity." •e of Orrisa and others Vs. Shiva (2) SCC 65, the Hon'ble Supreme lion passed againsf a a disciplinary enquiry is of removal from service •titution. This position was ''tution Bench of this Court State of Andhra. It is was not brought to the ~>f the High Court. Clause icted only when a person nce of the Union or an All ;e, of a State or one who te Union or a State is service. The provisions of yplication whatever to a. !'',.?.' ' ' 'baffiaik |a-HC-22: l<'eS!i6i£ssa '% -^^ 'TS? "{nwi, w\wie, hwwy *<rHwr sh*<i<* 3TRt?T tI^T .l^.l?l'^->...<»^'I~lr"^ 200 & (c|'b<8T' OT^T^T ft(-<ii* aii^r sti^i^ ^{TgtT ^ 3II^T?^ITWHfTO $' situation where a Govemmei placed under suspension pel since such action does not a removal from seruwe, The m.anifestly in error in quashi pdssed against the respondei violative 6f clause (1) cfArticl Similarly, in the matter ol reported in (1994)4 SCC 468, chaUenge, the Hon'ble Supreme d observed asunder: "4. .............R would thi disciplinary proceedings are is open to the appointir authority or authorized ofj servant under suspension." For the aforesaid reasons, th interfere with the;impugried order instant pefition being without sutj the admission stage itself and is h^ ^l cb)<ii<'i141^ -H^<nf "^ f^c^ <.r^^l< ^SlfWT 311^1 ^. servant has been merely ^ing departmental enquiry hstitute either dismissal or ^Iigh court was, therefore, ig the prder of suspension \t on the ground that itwas 311 ofthe Constitution. State o/ M.P. Vs. L.P. Tiwari, krherein identical issue was under ^urt reaffirming the earlier dictums s be clear that where lending or contemplated, it 7 authority, disdplinary cer to keep govemment Court does not find any reason to of Annexure P/1. Accordingly, the itance deserves to be dismissed at iby dismissed. G^^ ^^ "^-