HKM-CDURJL<XfflHATT18aARH^TBIIA^PU& PETmONER RE8PONDENT8 WRIT PETITION (8) No. 5035 of2009 Buddideo Barai ClTawait) S/o Late Shri D.R.Barai, aged bout 48 years, ocaipation Ser^ice^ Assistarrt Teacher (uader siispension) posted at Primary School Podikhoa, presently attached / Headquarter at office of Block Education Qfficer, Kartala, District Korba, R/o village and Post Jondhra., via Mastyri; District Korba (CG) VERSU8 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Tribal Department Mantralaya, at D.K.8. Bhawan, Raipur (CO) 2, rFhe Commissioner, Adim Jati Tatfaa Anusuchit Jati Vikas Vibhag, Raipw, (C.G.) 3. FEhe Collector, Adim Jati Tatlm Anusuchit Jati Vikas Vibhag, Raipur (CG) 4. The Collector (Tribal Development) Korba, (CG) 5. The Block Development Education Officer, Kartala(CG) WRJT PETmON UNDER AR'HCLE 226 OF 'Hm CON8TITUrnON OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Satish K. Asnlhotri, J. Present: Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate for the petftioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General forAie State/respondents. ORUERCORAL) (Passed on 07 day of September, 2009) 1. The petitioner was placed under Buspension by order dated 31 January 2008 (Annexure P/l), thereafter, a charge-sheet was served on 21 of Febmary, 2008 i.e. within a period of 45 days. The petitioner does not question the competence ofthe authority who has passed the impugned •r."^¥ ^?,5^^?' \> 4. order. However. the petitioner submits that after issue of charge-sheet, no enquiry officer has been appointed till date. On pemsal ofthe records, it appears that there m no itifiniiity or iBegality in the suspension order. The Supreme Court, m P.LShah v. Union of Indiax, has considered the nature ofsuspension and held as under: "6. An order of suspensicm is not an order imposmg pumslmient 011 a persoii fousid to b@ guilty. It is a$i wder made against him before he is found girilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedmgs iiiitiated agaiiist hiiB» Sucfa proceedings should be completed expeditiougly in fhe public iiiterest aiid also iii the mterest of tfae Govemiiieirt servaiit concemed. «.../' It is well settled prmciple of law that the suspension is temporary and it does not involve punishment with ciyil consequenws. Suspension means a temporary deprivation ofthe functions not amoimting to any reducticm of his raiik or his status. The employee undei' syspensioii contmues to be a Govenmient sen^ant he is not permitted to work keeping in view pendency of departmental enquiry to avoid undue influeiice in the proceedings of departmental ©nquiryand likely tampering with on records. Applying the well settled principl^s oflaw as enunciated above, to ttie facts ofthe instant case, this petition is dismissed without expressing any opinion on merite ofthe case. However, so far as appomting <m enquiry officar i$ concemed, it is expected that the respondent aufhorities, m the mter^t of justice, shall consider appomting enqiiiry offieer to expedite the enquiry proceeding as eariy as possible. No order aslo costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit • AlR 198^ SC 985