t HIGW COURT OF CMMATTI^yMilH AT BltASPUR Writ Petition (s) No. 1418of2007 PetiUoner : ShwBhuwanSingh,agedat»ut51year5, Son of Shri RamBaS Slngh, Laboiatory Technician, Govt. P.G. Gollege, Dharampura, Jagdalpur (C.G.). Versus Respondents :1. 2. 3. 4. Stat®<rf ChhatBsgarh, through Secratery, Higher EducaUon Deparbnent, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, ChhatHsgarh. The Commissioner, Higher Education De|Kirtment, Govt. ofChhatSsgarh, Science CoNege Compound, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) TheCollector, Distrfottostar, Agdalpur (ChhatBsgarh) Principal, Govemment P.G. CoBege, Dharampura, Jagdalpur Bastar (C.Q.). SB Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. «1. Present: Mr. Anupam Dubey, counsel for the petittoner. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. ^- 1. ORDER (Passed on this 12th day of March, M07) By this petition, filed under Articte 226 ofthe Con^ituflon of India, the petitioner seeks (br quashing of the memorandum etoted memorandum dated 25.11.2006 (P/9) and further seete a dirwtion ta the respondent-Collector to relnstate Uw petitoner on ttie post of Laboratory Technician and grant consequenUal benetifs aftor revoking the oreter dated 14.3.2002 (P/1), whereunder the petitfoner was placed under suspension by the Collector, Jagdalpur tostar. w: ^ tly fi's'. 2. The indisputabte fecte, In (uitehelt, are thatf fte petiUonBT was emptoyed as Laboratory Technfelan and was posted at Gwemment P.G. Coltege, Dharampura, Jsgdalpur Bastar. The pefitkmer was served with the suspension order dsrted 14.32002 P/1) In view of registration of Case Ho. 268/87 and 238/9S. The psUtoner was convicted vide order dated 14.3.2005 (Pffi) for commissien <rf an oflence punlshable under Secfion 465 of the Indian Penal Cocte aml sentenced to simple imprisonment Tor two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in defautt of payment of fine to ftjrther undergo simpte imprisonment for thre®months. The peliUoner v^s also convictsd for commission of an offence punishabte under SecUon 4^ <rf fte Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three ywss and fine of Rs. 3(XXy-, in default of payment ®fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three monttis. Both senteaced for commission ofthe offences are run concurrently. 3. The peUtioner preferred an appeal, belng Crtminat Appeal No. 27/2005, before the 1 Additional Sesstons Judge, Jagdalpur, Bastar again^ the judgment dated 14.3.2005, passed by fte Judicia! Magistrate, 1 Ctass, Jagdalpur. The AddiUonal Sessions Judge, victe his order dated 14.8.2006 (P/3) acquittedthe psUtionerfrom botti ttie charges, as above stated. 4. Thereafter, the petiUoner made several repiieseniaUons P/4, P/6, P/7), respecttvely to the Collector, Jagdalpu- tor quashing the suspension order and permKting him to pin Vhe service with all tfte benefits. 5. The Collector videorder dated 25.11.2006 (P/9) declined to revoke the suspension and reinsMe the pefitioner in the sarvice on the ground thatthe Govemment has decided to fite an apped against the 6. 7. 8. oreler dated 14.820W, passed by ttie Ist AdditfonalSessKms Judge, Jagdalpur Bastar. The que^ion, in this peBtton, arises for consideration is asto whethw the suspension can continue when the peBtkiner has been aGqultted in the trial of the criminal offences and the appeal against the acquteri is pending consideratton. This issue was considered and decidad by ttiis Court in tto case of Dhaneshwar Soni vs. State of ChhatUsgarh and another , wherein Uiis Court held as under :- "Since the petitioner has been acquitted in crinnnal trial by the trial Court, the petidonw cannot be cantinued uncter suspension. Even ifthe peBUoner is ulthnatelyfound guilty in th® appeal, consequential order can be passed. The suspension is not a punishment. The purpose of suspension is to keep the delinquent away from the work in order to ensure smooth disposal of invesBgation, inquiry or trial. In the case of appeal, there is no question <rf any fresh evidence or depos'rtion, whteh can be influenced by the petih'oner or further records can be tampered wiUi. The very purpose <rf keeping an employee under suspenston is fflot required in an appellate proceeding. In the present case, the pettttoner has been acquitted of tte offences for which he was placed undersuspension by <he order dated 14.8.2006, passed by the Judteial Magistrate, t Class, Jagdalpur. Pending of the second appeal cannot be ground for continuaUon of suspension. 9. The Supreme Court, in P.L.Shah vs. Unron oi India smd anoithe^, hetd as under:- "6. M order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guitty. It is an order made against him befbre he is found guilty to / ensure snnooth disposat of the (Koceedtngs toitlated againsthim. " 10. Accordingly, the suspena'on onter <fated 14.3.2002 (P/1^ and Itie memorandumdated 25.11.2006 fftl9) ape quashed. The pBUUon is altowed. The petih'oner is further enUtted to reinslatament wift consequential benefits flowtng ftom this oriter. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Bablu 1. 2007 (1) M.P.H.T. 54 (CG) 2 (1989) 1SCC 546