^ l^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR . ^3SO W.P.(S) N0. /2009 PETITIONER: ./' ^^,. <>•• ^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. 2.( ( 3< 4. 5. Jeevan Lal Barman S/o Shri Sukhi Ram Barman Aged about 39 years, Occupation Servite, Presently Workin^ as Headmaster in Middle School, Bazar Para, Tahsil Baloda, District Janjgri-Champa (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) The Secretary, General Administration Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) The Director Public Instruction Directorate Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Janjgir District Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) The District Education Officer, Janjgir-Chainpa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under : y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 7380 of 2009 Petitioner Jeevan Lal Barman Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others (Writ Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri U. R. Khosle, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. O R D E RtOralt (Passed on this 17th day ofDecember, 2009) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Headmaster in Middle School, Bazar Para, Tahsil Baloda, District Janjgir Champa, was placed under suspension by order dated 20.8.2007 (Annexure P/l) w.e.f. 3.4.2006, on the ground that he was confined to the jail custody on 3.4.2006 in connection with the offence registered at Crime No. 127, punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel further submits that the concerned authorities have not taken care to see that the admissible subsistence allowance is payable to the petitioner during suspension period. On perusal of the papers appended to the writ petition it is apparent that earlier the petitioner had flled W.P.No. 4687/2005 but the petitioner has not made even a whisper about the fate of the said writ petition, in the present writ petltion. Rule 9(2)(a) of the M.P./C.G. Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 provides that "A Government servrant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority (a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding forty-eight hours;?\ In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner was in ggssgy. i '^t-;:^-^" "^. 6. Thakur. custody more than 48 hours. Thus, I do not fmd any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order dated 20.8.2007 (Annexure P/l). It is well settled principle of law that the suspension is temporary and it does not involve punishment with civil consequences. Suspension means a temporary deprivation of the functions not amounting to any reduction of rank or status. The employee under suspension continues to be a Government Servrant, he is not permitted to work keeping in view pendency of criininal trial or departmental enquiry to avoid undue influence in the proceedings and likely tampering with on records. (See P.L.Shah Vs. Union of India and another1, Union of India atid others vs« B. G. Nambudiri2) In view of the foregoing, there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed, accordingly. No order asto costs. 8o far as the prayer of the petitioner for grant of subsistence allowance during suspension period is concerned, the petitioner may make a representation in this regard to the concerned authority. It is expected that the concerned authority may consider and decide the representation, if any, within a reasonable period, in accordance with law. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1989(1) SCC 546 (1991)3 SCC 38