em, 2?, §am$mga§m g A _ a.xi £zg ‘rgwa $) ‘gmqa €13: émw mg; a 53am ii { ag éJ‘i—j‘ $U‘ w: i diar'g 5 iL E M J g L G7“L ;um“ .ji. 4 > gg;ug *g' gr f E‘’ 4 dw m. 5r I ' uawigwaggas aaweg gukzw :- a'7 ‘s 1 l‘ ‘i‘E) EaiVEEm‘?iiéa QJ f’v %€§‘§§E$ i i‘‘§%i€r gi S. K : ;u i‘ gr w ‘s } E' J HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR (Division Bench) ”um..- —- CORAM : Hon’ble Shri A.K. Patnaik, CJ & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. WRIT PETITION NO. 1518 OF 2004 Dr. 0P. Tiwari Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Present: Petitioner in person. VORDER (Passed on 6m May 2005) The foiiowing Order of the Court was passed by A.K. Patnaik, CJ: - The petitioner is an employee of Veterinary Department of overnment of Chhattisgarh and was posted as In-charge, Veterinary Disease investigation Laboratory, Biiaspur in September 1992. By an order dated 31 05.2003 he was transferred from Biiaspur to Korba and Dr. SP. Singh was transferred from Korba to Biiaspur and posted in his place. n 06.10.2003, the Govemment of Chhattisgarh canceiied the said transfer order dated 31.05.2003. Thereafter, on 12.11.2003 the vernment of Chhattisg'arh stayed the said order dated 06.10.2003 canceling the order 'of transfer dated 31 05.2003. The result was that the rder of transfer dated 31 05.2003 transferring thewetitioner from Bilaspur to Korba became effective and the petitioner was required to join in his transferred post at Korba, but the petitioner did not join at Korba and on 25.03.2004 an order of suspension was passed by the Director, Veterinary Health Services, Government of Chhattisgarh l respondent No.2. As a result ofthe order of suspension. the petitioner was not paid his salary. Subsistence allowance payable under the relevant rules for the . Government servants placed under suspension was remitted to the t Mr. Yashwant Singh, Iearned Govt. Advocate for he respondents l State. G O Go o petitioner but the same was not accepted by the petitioner The petitioner has fled this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to pay his salary With effect from June 2003 2. in a separate writ petition numbered as W.P.No.1571 of 2004, the petitioner had challenged the order of transfer dated 31.05.2003 and a subsequent order dated 05.06.2004 by which the earlier order dated 06.1 0.2003 canceling the said order of transfer had been cancelled and by an order delivered today we have refused to interfere with the said order of transfer dated 31.05.2003'as weii as the order dated 05.06.2004 impugned in writ petition No.1571 of 2004 and have also vacated the interim order of status quo passed in the said writ petition. in view of the order passed today, the dispute raised by the petitioner with regard to his transfer from Biiaspur to Korba has been put to an end and the petitioner wiii now have t6 join at Korba pursuant to the aforesaid orders dated 31 05.2003 nd 05.06.2004 of the State Government. n-aQ:5 ./ £s 3. But it appears that so long as the order of suspension continues to be in force the petitioner wiii not be entitled to the salary but would be entitled to subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules. Despite subsistence allowance being remitted by the authorities, the petitioner has been refusing to accept the same on the ground that he is entitled to his salary and not subsistence allowance. The petitioner who has appeared in person submitted that he is entitled to the salary because of the fact that the order of suspension is illegal and contrary to the rules. 4. in view of the said stand taken by the petitioner before us, we have proceeded to examine the legality of the suspension order even though no relief has expressly been claimed in the writ petition for quashing the order of suspension. 5. After hearing the petitioner as weii as the Mr Yashwant Singh learned Govt Advocate for the State we find that the order of suspenSion has been passed by the Director of Veterinary Health §eIVices, Government of Chhattisgarh / respondent No.2 but it appears that the Director. Veterinary Health Services. Government of Chhattisgarh is not the appointing authority nor the authority empowered by the Governor by general or special order to place the petitioner under suspension. g K a 6. 'Rule 9(1) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classmcation, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 which have been adapted by the State of Chhattisgarh and which therefore in force also in the State of Chhattisgarh is quoted herein below: “9.(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority-empowered in that behalf by the Governor by generai or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension— ’ (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or i (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under inventilation, inquiry of trial; [Provided that a Govemment Servant shall invariably be placed under suspension when a challan for a criminai offence involving corruption or other moral turpitude is tiled against him;] Provided further that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made." a t l t p o oe o y G my r The plain language of Rule 9(1) mkes i cear that it is he apointing authrity or any authority to which the appointing authority is subrdinat or the disciplinary authority r any authority empowered in that behalf b the overnor by general or special order who a place him unde suspension. 7. Mr. Yashwant Singh, learned Governnt Advocate for the Slate Very fairly onceded that the Director, Veterary Health Services, Govnment of Chhattisgarh is not the appointing authority or disciplinary aUthority of the petitioner and instead th State Governent is the appointing authority of the petitioner and te Secretary. Agricture (Veterinary) is the disciplinary authorityof thpetitioner. No general or secal order of the Governor has e produced before us to sho that the Director. Veterinary Health Servics had been generlly or ecially empowered to place the petitioner under suspension. Tus: it appears that the order of suspension as passed by. an authority ho ws not empowered under Rule 9(1) of the MP. ivil Services (Classification, me c in er e m h ul k ei‘ pi ben w e a sp h w w a C Comm! and Appeal) Rules, 1966 to mace the petitioner under suspension. The order of suSpension is, therefore, without any authority of iaw and was null and void and was iiabie to be quashed. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we quash the order of suspension dated 25.03.2004 and direct the respondents to consider'the claim of the ‘petitionet for his salary in accordance with the reievant rules and pass appropriate orders and communicate such orders to the petitioner within a period oi one onth fm today ignoring te order of suspension that we m ro h have quased. Sunil Kumar Sinha C Justice Judge Sev- _/7N \#, so. _ i" h i 1 L“ href ) \