AFK HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (SI No. 6070 of 2008 (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satis K. Agnihoiri J.) Shri R. K. Keshexw Advcate for the petitioner. ani, o Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 3 & 5. (Passed on this 20¢ Day of Apr, 2009) il p hi d The et'm‘oner, by ts petition impugns the orer dated 8.8.2008 (Annexuxe P/ 1), whereby the petitioner we work as Supervisor, tegrated ld Develpment Project, Jaijaipur, District e Janjg’r Champa, as placed under suspension. Learned counsel appe for the etitioner submits that earlier by order dated 26..200 (Annexuie P/ 2) the petitioner was placed under suspenson, allegedly the ground of unauthorized absence horn duties and for continuous disobedience of the goveinuiental/ administrative orders. As the charge sheet could not be issued to the petitioner Within prescribed period, the suspension stood revoked, automatically, thus by the impugned order dated 8.8.2008 (Annexure P] 1) the petin'oner has again been placed u 3. Learned counsel, relying on the provisions of sub~ru1e 5 (a) of Rule 9. of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules, 1966’) submits that’there should be a specinc order revoking the suspension, passed under I nder suspension. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA h 0 R D E R hil ing In Chi o w aring p 58 i on Petiu'oner Smt. Pn'yambada Soni, aged 46 years, W/o Shri Bhagat Ram, working as Supexvisor, at Un$ed Women 8r. Child Development Project, Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Versus H Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department ’of Women 85 Child Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. The Commissioner, Department of Women 85 Child Development, Chhattisgarh, H.Q. Raipur. 3. The Collector, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 4. The Chief Executive OEcer, District Panchayat, Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 5. The District Women 8:, Child Development O$cer, Janjgir Champa (C.G.) the onier dated 26.5.2008 (Annexum P/ 2), when the charge sheet could not be served within 45 days. Sub—rule 5 (a) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1966 provides that “An oxder of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule, shall cont'nue to remain in force until it is modiued or revoked by the authority competent to do so.” Sub-rule 5 (b) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1966 provides that “In respect of a Government servant, whose orders of suspension stand revoked in accordance with the met or second proviso of clause (a) the authority competent may, if it considers expedient so to do, place him under suspension after a copy. of charges and other documents, as required by sub-rule (4) of Rule 14, have been issued to him.” In the present case, though there was no speciEc order, however, the petin'oner was allowed to join her services on 15.7.2008, making it clear that the suspension order stood revoked, automan'cally, as is evident from the order dated 15.12.2008 (Annexure R-l). The petitioner, thereafter, continued to work till she was again placed under suspension by order dated 8.8.2008 (Annexure P/ 1). Admittedly, the charges of unauthorized absence and continuous disobedience of the governmental/administrative orders have been issued to the petitioner and. the disciplinary proceeding is in progress. At this stage it is not necessary to take any decision on merits. It is well settled principle of law that the suspension is temporary and it does not involve punishment with civil consequences. Suspension means a temporary deprivah'on of the functions not amounting to any reduction of rank or status. The employee under suspension conunues to be a Government Servant, he is not permitted to work keeping in‘VkW pendency ,of departmental enquiry to avoid undue influence in the proceedings of departmental enquiry and likely tampering with on records. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.L.Shah Vs. Union of India and another1, held that “an order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guilty. It is an order 1 1989(1) scc 546 gW made agéinst him befom he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the pmceedings initiated against him.” 10. The Hon’ble Supxeme Court in Union of India and others vs. E. G. Nambudiriz obselved that “if the statutoxy rules mquire communication of reasons, the same must be communicated but in the absence of any such provision absence of communication of reasons do not ah‘ect the validity of the order.” \ 11. At this stage it is not necessaiy to go into the charges levelled against the petitioner because it may pmjudice the case of the parties, Whelein the respondents have initiated departmental enquixy. 12. In View of the fonegoing, no interference is wairanted with the impugned order dated 8.8.2008 (Annexure P/ 1). The Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. xxx Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur " M 2 (199m sec as