^•~:::fv'^;is>-s't -1QH COURT OF CHHATTiSQARH: BiLASPuR W.f.JSLT 'etitiorier iajesn anarma, ag' /'• ''-/'^it. ^-^' ?,?"•?>^T'ih'^iH^nri ResDondents varsus 1 Mahssamunc, Distt Mahasamund //~l.rs \ The Chisf Executive Officer. Zila Panchayat iViahasamund, Distt. iV^i'a^C;: s i,Ji iU \^.\^.f The Additiona! Ch^et cxeoutive Office-. Zila Fanchayat Mahssamund. Distt. Mahssamund '••^.'•^^.) 'The -eknadhikari, Ziia Panchavat iViahasamund Dlstt. Mahasamund /Q Q \ Chief Executive Officer, Jsnpad Panchavat Mahasamund. Distt. Mahasamund fC.G.) fs/vnt Petition under Articie 226 of the ConstiTuiion of !nQla) >3: Hon'Ns Shri Justice Satish K. Agnmotri 4. gr!:'] Bhsrst RslDiJt. Advocsts fbr ths Dgtltlonsr. •»0> .-•.? •F?ft^'?^ (i-assec on s'" s,iay, 2007; By this petition, ine petitloner has chaiienged ihe 'mpugnea suspension ordsr aated 26.4.2007 (Annexure P/1). The pet'tioner was workina as Assistant Grade-iil in ths onice of the Janpad Panchayat, Mahasamund, when the impugned suspension order was passed. On oerusal of ihe susDension orcier, it appears that ine peiitioner, aiong with anather Assi^ant Grade-11!, has been piaced under suspsnsion on account of discoverv of aiiecsed financial 'rregularities dunng inspem'on. Learned counsei appsaring for the petitioner submits that according to 2.9.3 of ths Circular dated 29.11,1996 (Annexure P/2) oniy Director. Commissioner or CoHsctor ars the pressribed officsr ta nave InspectioFf ;n Janoad Fanchavat. He rurther submits that Section' 84' sf the Panchavat Ral Adhiniyam, 1993 provices for inspsctio" of Panchayats oniy by those officers, who have been prescrioeo, specn'ica!lv Tor mss purpose. AS sucn tne responae"! Nc.1 was not. competent to have an inspection of ths Janpaci Panchavat, Mahasamund. /. 4. The contentions of iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner appears to be misconceived, as the resDondent No.1 is the Chief Executive Officer of the office of the District Psnchayat, 'i'iahasamund. which has administrative controi over the Janpad Panchayat, Mahasamund. Fara 2.9.3 of the memo aated 29.11.1996 (Annexurs P/2) ctearly '. provides ihat Jnspsction of Jenpad 'Pancnayat can be made by Dirsctor, Co.nmissioner or Coliector or any other suthorized ofnce-. The Chief Executive Officer of the Ziia Panchavat is an authorized officer by the Coiiector to iook into the functioning of the Janpad Panchavat. Thus. ths contention of learned counsel for ths pstitioner that the Chief Executjve Offioer was not an authorized offcsr o-sssrvss to bs r&isctsci. 8. Th's Court is of the considersd opinion that any empiovee can be suspended where the discip'inary procseding against nim Is contemplated or is pending. Looking to the alieged oharge, stated in the suspenslon o?der, it is ciear that a disciplinary procssding is oontsmplated against the petitioner. The petitioner, without waiting for the charge shset, straightaway has come to this Court. The petltion is premature and at this stage the same cannot be entertainsd, it is ve!l settied principle of iaw that tne suspension is temporary and it does no'i invoivs Dunishment 'iVith civil conseauences. Susoension means a temporaiy deprivation of the functions not amounting te anv reduction of hls rank or his status. The empiovee under suspension continues 10 bs a Government Servant. he is not permitted.to work keeping jn vlsw oendency of departmenta! enquin/ to avoid undue influence in the proceedings or departmentai enquiry and "kely tamperina with on records, 8. The petitio'i is accordingiy dismissed, summariiy. ndu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge