/^F^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISCTARH AT BILASPUR WR.IT PETmON (8) No. 2072 of2009 PETiTIONER : Ram Ratan Gupta S/o Dev Chand Prasad Gup'ta, Aged about 53 years, R/o Q. No; B/8, SECL Bishrampur, Distt. - Surguja (C.G.) \7ERSUS RF;8PONDENT8 : 1. South Eastem Coaffields Ltd. 'flirough: Chief Maiiagiiig Director, -Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Chief Geiieral Maiiager, South Eastem Coalfields Limited, Bis.hrampyr Area< Bislirampur, Distt. Surgzya (CG.) 3. Dy. Chief Persona.1 Maxiager, South East.cm - Coalfieids Lmiited, Bistoasiipur Ai'ea, Bishrampur Diatt, Surguja (C.G.) 4. Dy. Chief Mcdiea! Officer, Ceiitra! Hospital, Bishrampur, Di.stt» Surguja (C.G») WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hoii*ble Shri Satish K. Agiiihotri, J. Present: Shri JYK.Shastri, Advocate for the petitioner« • (Passed on 22nd day of Apn\, 2009) 1, The only ground of challenge m this petition is. that ttoe petitioner has been p.1aced under saspensioii, Charge-sheet was issued to tie petitioner on 24.12.2008 (Aiinexare P/4)< The suspen.sio^- without assi@riing any reasors m bad m law and reqiiires co.mideration. Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner iiirtlier submits th.at even ifthe charge-sheet has been issued, it is not siecessary to pla.ee a.n employee under suspension. 1. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioiier, perased the pleadmgs and documents appeaded thereto. 3, The law on suspeiision m very clear that ifthere is a pending enqiiiry or contemplation or pendmg departmental eaquixy or crimmal proceedings, the petitioner may be placed under suspension. In the case on hand, charge-sheet was issiied statmg. that the petitioner was pla.ced under suspension. IIiere is no infirmity in the order. Iffhere is any deficiency or disCTqpancy m the charge sheet, the petitioiiCT has full libeily to take the mattei- before the enquiry oftlcer or before the other competent authoritv. hl»»r 7. 8. It is well-settled principle ofl.aw th.at the suspension is temporary aiid it does not mvolve pumshment with civil conseqiiences. Suspensioo meam a temporary deprivation of the functions not amounting te any reduction ofrank or status. ITie employee usider suspension continues to be a Govemment Ser^ant he is not permitted to work keepmg m view pendency of departmental enquiry to avoid undiie mtliience m fhe proceedings of departm.ental enquiry aod likely tampermg with on records. The Hon'ble Supreme Court m PJ^Shah Vs. Union qf India and another\ bQid that "an order of siispension is not an order imposmg pimishment on a person. found to be gailty, It is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensvre smooth disposal of tfae proceedmgs imtiated against him/9 The Hors'ble Supreme Court m Unian of India cmd ofhers vs. E. G. Nambzidiri obser/ed that "ifthe statutory mles reqiiire commBmcation of reasons, the same m.ust be commumcated but m the abseii.ee of any such provision absen.ee of co.mmumcatiors. of reasoins do not aftect tb.@ validitv ofthe order/' At this stage it m not necessary to go into fhe charges levelled against fhe petitioner because it may prejudice the case of the parties, wherein. tfie respondents have imtiated departm.ental enquiry'. Since the cfaarge- sheet has been issued and the disciplinary exiquiry is pesi.din.g consideratioyL placing the petitioner under susperssioB is jvst aad p.roper a.nd needs no irsterf'e.retice. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petitioii is devoid of m.erit and is accordingly dismissed at the motion; stage itsel£ Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Ainit ^ 1989(1) SCC 546 2ri991)3SCC3S