SE°''"IilF RF^^?-:5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR s WRIT PETITION (S| No.lS 8 2-0 /2006-5-fi*- PETITIONER Satish Kumar Pandey, aged about 41 years, S/o Akshay Kumar Pandey, R/o Pandripani, Tahsil and District Raigarh VE^SU? ^ KESPONDRNTS ^r. .<-0^0^ ^v..\^1^ sAy ^^ \^.^ ev^ 1. Tbe State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, School Education Department, B.'K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. _2.. J^var SECs-etasy. School Education DepartrEient, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur ,.T.C. Patel S/o Motichand aged 'l-^'^..W"^.,-Jia3..-1'-(-;- ^atei y/o Nioticnana a; ....0-'-,^-V'<>;.^1"" :..-&bout 57 years, R/o Village ^s^^.^^' &a^s0-"' Latesara, Tahsil Sakti Distt. Janjgir Champa A- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/2®?OF THE CONSTITUTIOS OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WMT PETITION (S) No. 6820 of2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Satish Kumar Pandev. VERSUS The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. Post for order on ^fl^arch, 2007 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTM, J. WRIT PETITION (S) 6S2Q of2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Satish Kumar Pandey, aged about 41 years, S/o Akshay Kumar Pandey, R/o Pandripani, Tahsil and District Raigarh. VER8US : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur. 2. Avar Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, 3. T.C.Patel S/o Motichand aged about 57 years, R/o Village Latesara, Tahsil Sakti Distt. Janjgir Champa. Present: Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advocate for the State / respondent no. 1 and 2. Shri Ramakant Pandey, Advocate for respondent no. 3. ORDER (Passed on ^iS/<ofMarch, 2007) 1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the suspension order dated 28.11.2006 (Annexure P/ll) p^sed by the Under Secretary, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department. Further, the » petitioner seeks direction to allow him to work as Incharge, D.E.O. Raigarh and pay the salary accordingly with consequential benefits. 2. The indisputable facts in iiutshell are that the petitioner vide order dated 30.09.2005was transferred from Raigarh to Bilaspur. The respondent no. 3 was at that point oftime posted at Raigarh. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 4919/2005 in tiiis Court. This Court, vide order dated 05.10.2005 directed stotus quo as existed on 5.10.2005 to be maintained. By virtue ofthe said order, the petitioner, it appears, continued at the place of Raigarh. The respondent no. 3 while working as Principal, D.E.T.I. Pendra Road, was suspended. However, the respondent no. 3 was addressed as Incharge, District Education Officer vide order dated 29.04.2006 (Annexure PS). The respondent no. 3 filed a petition being W.P. No. 5221/2006 for grant of subsistence aliowance from October 2005 onwards during the period of suspension. This Court, after recording the order dated 4.7.2006, issued by the Under Secretary, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department, the District Educaton Officer and other autiiorities were directed to release the subsistence allowance to the respondent no. 3 Shri T.C.Patel in accordance with law within a period of 15 days from the dlate ofreceipt ofa copy ofthe order. 3. The State Govemment, vide order dated 28.11.2006 initiated a departmental enquiry against the petitioner stating that the payment of subsistence allowance could not be made to the respondent no. 3, asto why departmentel action should not be initiated against him. Accordingly, the petitioner was suspended. During the pendency of enquiiy, the petitioner filed this petitioner on several grounds. Firstly, that the petitioner was not the ofEicer concemed to release the subsistence allowance to the respondent no. 3, secondly, all the orders dated 30.11^006, 16.10.2006. i.11.2006, 16.11.2006 md 15.112006 are conflictinR and confosin! 4. It is admitted position that the employee against whom a departmental enquiry is pending consideration can be placed under suspension under the provisions of Rule 9(l)(a) of C.G. Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Thus, the grounds raissd by the petitioner are the matter of investigation arid enquiry. The petitioner can very well raise the same ground in disciplinary enquiry in order to establish his case. This Court cannot examine the factual aspect of the matter for which a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated. The impugned order of suspension passed under section 9(1 )(a) ofM.P. Civil Serviees (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1966 which cleariy provides that the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary aufhority or any ofher authority empowered in behalf of Govemment by general or special order, may place the govemment servant under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending. 5. It is well settled principle oflaw that the suspension is temporary and it does not involve punishment with evil consequences. Suspension means a temporary deprivation of the fanctions not amounting to any reduetion of his rank or his status, The employee under suspension continues 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 ofthe departmenta! enquiry and likely tampering with on records. At this stage is it not necessary to go into the charges levelled against flie petitioner because it may prejudice the case ofthe parties in the pending departmental enquiry (See. Smt. Philomina Eldca Vs State ofC.G. & Others1). 6. I do not propose to examine the allegations made in the suspension ofder as the enquiry is proposed to enquiry the facts. This order will not come in the way ofenquiry, ifany, against fhe petitioner on merit. The enquiry authority may proceed with the enquiry uninfluenced by fhis order. 7. In view of foregoing, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. — 8. Consequently, M(W)P No. 4909/2006, application for grant of ad-interim relief stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1. 2006(2)C.G.L.J.64 Amit