'^^- BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER .^' .^- {ty'^^ ••l.^<^ .y ...^' RESPONDENTS W.P.(S) N0. >'~T15^~ /2009 ,/ Rajesh Mishra, aged about 42 years, son of Late Gopinath Mishra, Working as - Upper Division Teacher (UDT), presently posted as - Prabhari Khand Shrot Samanvay Coordinator - Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission Jagdalpur distt Bastar (CG) R/o Bramhapara, Panchpeth Road, Jagdalpur (CG) VERSUS 1..- State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Deptt of School Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. 2- District Collector Jagdalpur, Distt Bastar. ,3. Zila Pariyojana Samanvayak, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bastar, Jagdalpur. 4. District Education Officer, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) 5. Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Vikash Khand, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) <y ^' HIGH_COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR 'x~ Writ Petition fS) No. 5452 of 2009 Petitioner Rajesh Mishra Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers WRrr pErmoN UNDER ARTICLE 225/227 OFTHE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Ms Morisha Chattri, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Ms Sunita Jauj, Panel Lawyer for fhe respondents No. 1, 2 & 4. O R D ER foral) (Passed on this 22nd day ofSeptember, 2009) Heard. The petitioner, by fhis writ petition, chaUei^es fhe legality and vaUdity of the order dated 28.8.2009 (Armexure P/l), whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspensiou on accouat of certaia irregularities cominitted by the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the inipugned order on the grouud that the impugned order is itlegal, arbitrary and against Uie provisions of law. The respondent No.4 - District Education Of&cer, Jagdalpur, is not coinpetent to pass tfae order of suspension, without taking prior approval of fhe conipetent aufhority i.e. the CoUector, the Mission Director or Zila Pariyojana Saiuanvayak. The law on suspension is veiy clear. If an order of suspeasion is passed uuder Rule 9 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services .(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, by an authority lower fhan the appoiating autliority, such aufhority shaB forthwith report to fhe appointing authority. In tlie case on hand, it appears, tihat on placiag ttie petitioner under suspension, the _^^-5at,g •;c,<<'s^ t 1 ^..-^/' "'"as.K.?'1'1 € 4. Tbatair Secretary, School Education Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Director, PubUc Educatiou, Mission Director aad Collector, bave ah-eady been infonaed. There is a protection under the provisions of law that if no enquiry is uutiated within a period of 45/90 days, the suspension order stauds autoiaaticaUy revoked. In the present case, 45 days have not been coinpleted. Thus, fhere is no irregularity or iUegality ia fhe order passed by fhe Distnct Education OfScer. It is weU setfled principle oflaw that the suspension is teinporary aad it does not iavolve punishment with civil consequences. Suspension xueaas a temporaiy deprivation of the functions not amounting to aay reduction of raak or status. The eniployee under suspension continues to be a Goveriunent Servaat, he is not pennitted to work keeping ia view pendency of criminal tnal or departiuental enquiry to avoid undue uifluence ia the proceedings aad likely tampermg with on records. (See P.L.Shah Vs. Uaioa of India and another1, Union of India and others vs. E. G. Nambudirl2) In view of the foregoiiig, there is no nierit iii this writ petition. The writ petition is disinissed, accordiogly. __ _-———- \ ^ i \ sd/- .. _.„: : \ Satfeb^.A8nalotrl 1 1989(1) SCC 546 2 (1991)3 SCC 38 r—