AF^ ^' HiOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2097 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 3 4 5 Ganesh Prasad Verma, son of Shri Anand Ram Verma, aged about 56 years, presently post^dl as Sankut Coordinator, Kirwai, resident of village and post Hatband, Tehsil Simga, Disfrict Raipur (CG). Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of School Education, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CG). Deputy CMrector, Directorate of Public instructions, EducatSon District Raipur, Raipur(CG). District Education Offieer, Raipyr, Disto-ict Raipur (CG). Block Education OfRcer, Slmga, Tehsil Simga, District Raipur (CG). Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, tirough theDistrict Project Coordinator, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of Indja) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satfsh K.Agnihotri, Jl Present: Shri Amrito Das, counsei for the petitioner. Ms Sunite Jain, Panel Lawyer forthe State. IB (Passed on this 22nd day of Aprl!, 2009) Chatienge in this petition is to the order cteted 2©.03.2009 (Annexure - P/1) whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the ground ttiat he has huried filtt^ languag®befc»e the Block Education Officer, Simga, in inebriated condttiQn. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly challer^es the impugned order of suspension and issue of charge sheett<^ether on the ground that the petitioner was on deputation and, as such, the parent department cannot place the petitioner on suspension and thereafterat the time of suspension the petitioner cannot be atts»hed to any other place except where he was working. / 3) Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, CoRtro! and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short "the Rules, 1966'} provides f@r suspensions. Rule 9 (1) of the Rules, 19^ cleaarly prwides as under: "9 (1) The appointing authorify or any auttiority to which It is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by ihe Governor by general or special order, may place a Govemment sen/ant under suspension- (a) where a disciplinary proceeding agalnst him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) where a csse against hlm in respect ©f any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial: provlded that a Government servant shall jnvariably be ^aced under suspension when a challan for a criminai offence involving corruption; or other moral turpitude is filed against him:] Provided further that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing auttiority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was macte." 4) Rute 20 of the Rutes, 1966 dealing wth the provjsions regarding officers lent to the Union or any other Stat® Govemment on any subordinate or local authority, ete. It provides for susp®nsion E>y the borrowing authority alsowith a rider that the same shall be informed to the autiiority forthwith, which lend the services of the Goveenment swvant. Rule 20 (1) ofthe Rutes, 1966 reads as under: "20. Provisions regarding offi^srs tent to ttie Union or any other Stete Government on any subordinate or local authority, etc. <1) Where the services of a Government servant are !®ntby one department to another department or to th@ Uiiion Government or to any other State Governmwitor arvy authority subordinate thereto or to a tocal or other authority (hereinafter in this rule referred to as 'the borrowing authority'), the borrowing authority shal! have the powers of the appointing authorify fw the purpose of placing such Government servant under suspension and of the disciplinary authority for th@ purpose of conducting a disc^linary proceeding against him; Provided that the borro^ng authorfty shall forthwith inform the authority whach lend the services of the Government servant (hereinafter jn this rule referred to as 'the lendjng iautiority') of the circumstances ieading to ihe order of suspension of such Government servant or the commencement of the discjpjinary proceeding as the ease may be." Provided ftjirther that ^iere the order of suspension is made by an authority tower than the appointing authority, such authorlty shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made." 5) On perusal of the both the provisions stated above, it is clear that the appointing authority is the appropriate authority to ptace an employe® under suspension in certain circumstances. In case of deputation, the borrowing authority may also piace an @mployee uiider syapensjen provided the same is informed forthwith to the authority, whloh hadl lent the services of the Govemment sen/ant. Thus, the impugnecS order passed by the appointjng authority cannot be feulted with. 6) As far as the piacement of the petitioner after passing of the impugned suspension order is concemed, there is no provision wtiich provides that the employee placed under suspension may be attached only at the place where he was working and, as such, there is no embargo on the piacement ofsuch empioyee at any ottierplace. 7) Be that as it may, once ttie charge-sheet has teen issued, this Court should refrain from interfering with the charge-sheet or an enqujry. Sf the petitioner is innocent, the petitioner may file his reply and jwove his innocence in the departmental enquiry. So far as suspension is concerned, suspension of an ©mployeeis governed under the provisions of Rute 9 of the Rules, 1966 wherein it is ctearly provieted tfiat an employee on charges of irregularities can be placed under suspension when enquiry is Jn contemptation or pending consideration. This is a case wherecharge-sheet has been issued atongwith suspension wder. 8) !t is well-settled princirte of law that the suspension is t©mporary and it does not involve punishment with dvit consequences. Suspension means a temporary deprivation <rf the functions not amounting to any reduction of rank or status. The employee under suspension corrtinues to be a Government 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. Gowri 9) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.L.Shah Vs. Union of tndia and another1, held that "an ordter of suspenson is not an order imposing puni^iment on a perswi foundto be guilty. It is an oflster macte against him before he is found guiity to ensufe smooth dfsposaf of the pvoceedSngs initisted against him" 10) The Supreme Ceurt in Union of Imlia and othere vs. E. G. Nambudiri2 observed that "if )e stetutory rules wquife eoinifiifnicaffon of reasons, ffiie same mu^ be communicated bi^ w Ifte absenceGf any su<^i pifoviston atfswnce of communksaffon of reasonsdo not alteet the vaiidity offfyeorder." 11) At this stage it is not necessary to go iRto th®charges levelled against the petitioner because it may prejudice the case of the parties, wherein the respondents have inittated departmental enqviry. 12) In view of the foregoing, the suspension order eannot be faultecl with. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge 11989(1) SCC 546 2 (1991)38cc 38