^- IN THE HIGH COURT QF CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition iS) No. 3459 (rf20Q7 Petitioner Raghavendra Singh Kshatrya, S/o Shri Ram Kuinar Kshatriya, aged about 43 years, Occupation - Service, Posted as Junior Assistant, Branch Manager, Chliattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Branch Office Charama, District North Baster, Kaxiker Versus Respondents 1. Chhattisgarh State Ware Housiag Corporation, through its Man^iag Director, 22 Aaaad Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur 2. Chhattisgarh State Ware Housin| Corporation, fhrough its Deputy Mauagiag Director, 22- Anand Nagar Raipur, District Raipur(C,G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OPTHE CONSTITUTION QF INDJA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agaihotri J.) Shri Ashok Soiii, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri B. D. Guru, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on this 28tfa Day ofApril, 2009) The petitioner, ia this petition has prayed for graat of the foUowiag relief that this Court inay direct the respondents to declare fhe suspension order dated 5.4.2006 staiids revoked aad to reiiistate the petitioner wifh full salary. '. The petitioner impugns fhe legaUty and validity offhe order dated 5.4.2006 (Anuexure P/l), whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension on account of his arrest by the Anti Corruption Biireau while acceptmg bribe. Adnuttedly, the chaUaa has been filed and the criminal Case No. 18/2006 is stiU pendiag consjderation for fhe ofFence under Section 13 (l) (e) and 13 (2) of fhe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. 4. ¥- Shri B. D. Guru, leamed couasel appearmg for the respondents, submits that the petitioner was placed uuder suspension uader the provisions of Regulation 23 (1) of fhe Staff Regulations of Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation ia respect of crimiaal offence, involving moral turpitude. Since fhe criminal case, pursuant to the arrest, is still penduig trial, fhe suspension of fhe petitioner catuaot be revoked. Earlier, the petitioner had ffled Writ Petition (S) No. 4673/2006, chaUenging the suspension order dated 5.4.2006, wtiich was disruissed by order dated 31.8.2006 (Annexure P/3). Adinittedly, the trial for the chai^es ofcruniual offence, involving moral turpitude is pending against fhe petitioner. At this stage it is not necessary to take any decision on merits. It is weB setfled principle oflaw fhat the suspension is temporary and it does not involve punishnient with civil consequences. Suspension means a temporaiy deprivation of the functions not amouating to any reduction of raak or status. The einployee under suspension contmues to be a Govemment Servant, he is not permitted to work keeping ia view pendency of crimiaal trial or departmental enquiry to avoid uudue uifluence in tlie proceedings aud likely tampermg with oa records. The HonT^le Supreme Court in P.L.Shah Vs. Uaioa of India aad another1, held tfaat "aa order of suspension is not au order imposing punishinent on a person foiind to be guilly. It is an order made against him before he is found guilly to ensure smoofh disposal ofthe proceedings uutiated against him. ' 1989(1) SCC 546 •!i I1 1, :'^:' 7. The HonTale Supreme Court in Unioa of India and others vs. E. G. Nambudiri2 observed that 'if fhe statutoiy rules require coinTminication of reasons, the same inust be cominiinicated bul iu the absence of any such provision absence of coinmiuucatioii ofreasons do not affect the validity ofthe order." In view of the foregoing, fhe suspension order is valid and writ petition is disiiiissed accordingly. However, tbe petitioner inay file appropriate appUcation before fhe concemed authority for enliancement of subsistence allowaace, if so advised. Sd/- ... Satish K.Agnihotri . Judge .: , Tbakur ^