AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH: BiLASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. S010 of 2007 Petitioner U.K. Kulmitra, aged about 50 years, S/o. Late Shri Kashiram, Office Assistant Grade il, Office of the Chief Medical and Heaith Officer, Kabirdham. Versus Respondents 1) State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Health ahd Family Welfiare, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2) Director, HeaSth Services, Opposite Martralaya, Raipur. 3) Collector, Kabirdham. (Writ Petjtion under Articie 226 of the Constltution of tndia) SB: Hon'bSe Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Ltkarsh Verma, counselforthepetitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate fortheStat®. IL ORAL ORDER {Passed on 30 January, 2008) By this petition fiied under Article 226 ofthe Constitutton of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefe: "7.1 Quash the order no. F-7-26/2001/9/17 dated 10/9/2007, passed by Under Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Health and Family Welfare (Annexure P/6). 7.2. Direct the respondents to pay full back wages du& to the petitioner treating the period to be period-in-service. 7.3 Grant cost. 7.4 Any oiher relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2) The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner working as Assistant Grade II, in the office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, 2-- n Kabirdham, was suspended during the pendency of th®trial for having committed offence punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act, 1988) on 16-7-2002 (Annexure P/1) which was approved by the State Govemmsnt on 17-7-2002. The petitioner was acquitted in ttie frial on 30-6-2006 by order passed by the Special Judge under th®Act, 1988 (Annexure P/2). The Collector, Kabirdham, revoked the suspension on 24-1-2007 (Annexure P/3) and the petitioner joined the office accordingty. The petitioner was thereafter again suspended on 10-9- 2007 (Annexure P/6) on the ground that the appea) against the order dated 30-6-2006 passed by the Speciat Judge, acquitting the peUtioner has been filed and is pending consideration in the High Court. The issue involved in this case is asto whether the employee is liable to be suspended during pendency ofthe criminal appeal. 3) Learned counset appering for the petitioner submits that Uiis very issue has been considered by this Hlgh Court in Dhaneshwar Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2007 (1) M.P.H.T. 54 (CG) where the retevant rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classificafen, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, Rules 1986) was in issue. Rule 9 of the Rules 1966 provides for suspension where a case against the emptoyee in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or triai. Since Uie petitioner has been acquitted in the criminai trial, suspension is not necessary to keep away Uie employee from the work in order to ensure smooth disposal of investigation or trial. In the case of appeal, there is no question of any fresh evidence or deposifon, which can be influenced by the petitioner or further records can be tampered with. /^'i'\ ^ & 1 ^^, S 1 ^ ^-y",/! t'?" _^;' -i- 4) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that the fact and issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment and order passed in the case of Dhaneshwar Soni (supra). 5) The Supreme Court, in P.L. Shah Vs. Union of India and another (1989) 1 SCC 546, held as under- "6. An order of suspension is not an order imposing punishmert on a person found to be guilty. !t is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him." 6) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned suspension order dated 10-9-2W7 (Annexure P/6) is quashed and the petition Is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to all the consequentiat benefits flowing from this order. No order as to coste. g^y. Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Ra]u