o fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Wnt Petition (S) No. 1978of2009 Mathura Prasad Kashyap, S/o Shri Bedilal Kashyap, aged about 53 years, present workmg as R.I. in the of&ce of Tahsil — Bilaspui, Distt, Bilaspur (CG). Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2 The Commissioner, Land Record, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). 3 The Collector, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 4 Additional Collector, Bilaspiu-,-' Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 5 M.R. Gayaikwad (Tahsildar), Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226 oftbe Gonstitution oflndia) Single Bench :'Hon'ble Sbri Satish K. Agnihotri, J Present: ShriAim'itoDas,couuselforthe.petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 17"' day ofApril, 2009) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 06.03.2009 whereby while issuing a charge-sheet against the petitioner, the petitioner was plaeed under suspension. The petitioner impugns the suspension order on the ground that the charges framed against the petitioner are trivial in nature and that may not lead to suspension or departmental enquiry. 2, Be that as it may, once the charge-sheef has been issued, fhis Court should refrain from interfering with the charge-sheet or an enquiry. If the petitioner is irmocent, the petitioner may file his reply and prove ttis "*& irmpcence in the departmental enquiry. So far as suspension is concemed, suspension ofan employee is govemed tmder the provisions ofRule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Ciyil Services (Classificatioit, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 wherein it is clearly provided that an employee on charges of irregularities can be. placed under suspension when enquiry is in confemplation or pending consideration. This is a case where charge-sheet has been issued along with suspension order. 3. It is well-settled principte of law that the suspension is temporary and it does not involve punishment with civil consequences. SuspensioU means a temporary deprivation ofthe fimctions aot amounting to any reduction of rank or 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 influence in the proceedings of departmental enquiry and likely tampering with on records. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.L.Shah Vs. Union of India and another, held that "an order of suspension is not an order imposing puaishment ona person found to be guilty. It is an order made againslhml before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him." 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court m UnioU of India and others vs. E. G. Nambudiri observed that "ifthe stataltory rules require commiinication ofreasons,the same must be comfflunicated but in the abseuce ofany such provision absenee qf commumcation bfreasons do not affect the validity ofthe order." 6. At this stage if is not necessary to go into the charges levelled against the petitioner because it may prejudiee the case of the parties, wherein the respondents have initiated departmental enquiry. 7. In view ofthe foregoing, the suspension order cannot be faulted with. The writpetition is dismissedaccordingly. Sd/- ^SatishX.Agnihotri 7/ \ -• Ainit ..*to- ' 1989(1 )SCC 546 2(19S1)3SCC38 1 •i