^s IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAEHATBILASPUg Writ Petition No PETITIONER .l6S^ 2005 ^ ^y ^ KE8PONDENTS 1. Om Prakasli Sehgal, S/o Lsite Stiri B. L. Sehgal, aged about 59 years, Occzipation- Ser^ice, worldng as in of the CHef Enguieer, P.7/.D. BilasDur- R/ o S&bioclia. Coloiiv- Bilaspiir (C.G.). -Ver^iis-- State of Chliattisgm'li, Tlirough the Secretary ^ PubKc ¥/orksDepBTtmeiit, Maiitral&ya^ Shastri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). E^ighieers In Chief;, Piiblic Works Depaitinent^ Near Akashwani^ KaJi MancUr Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). Under Secretary^ Public Works Departraent, Mantralaya, Shaatri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). lTigNUNDER_ARTlCLE226QF_TH^CONSTl^ POR OF A WRIT IN THE OF M/1NDAMUS. PROHIBITION, CERTIOR^RI ETC.OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO .mSTlCE IN THE MATT.ER. 3. ^ ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1687 of 2005 I Petitioner Om Prakash Sehgal Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. O R D E RIOrall (Passed on this 10th day of March, 2010) Heard. 1. The petitioner by this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of the order dated 19.1.2004 (Annexure P/3) and the order dated 1.4.2005 (Annexure P/6). 2. The petitioner while working as Incharge Executive Engineer in Public Works Department at Korba Division, was placed under suspension by order dated 24.12.2002 (Annexure P/l). Having considered the reply submitted by the petitioner the departmental enquiiy, contemplated against the petitioner, was dropped and his suspension was revoked by order dated 28.8.2003 (Annexure P/2). 3. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.1.2004 (Annexure P/3) it was directed that the petitioner would be treated on duty during the suspension period from 24.12.2002 to 28.8.2003 for pension and other purposes but he would not be entitled for any other ^^r^ ^ 6. amount, except the subsistence allowance, during the suspension period. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 3493/2004 before this Court, which was disposed ofby order dated 3.1.2005 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 29.1.2004 (Annexure P/4) on its own merits, in accordance with law. By the impugned order dated 1.4.2005 (Annexure P/6) the representation of the petitioner was rejected. Hence the petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 19.1.2004 and the order dated 1.4.2005. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the departmental action against the petitioner was dropped while giving a warning and the suspension was revoked simplicitor, the petitioner is entitled for the full salary and allowances for the period i.e. 24.12.2002 to 28.8.2003 when he was remained under suspension. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that under the provisions of F.R.54-B, Chapter VIII of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules, the petitioner is not entitled to full pay and allowances during the suspension period. Sub-rule (3) of F.R. 54-B provides that the Government servant shall be paid full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended, where the authority competent to order re-instatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified. In the present case, the competent authority who had passed the order dated 28.8.2003 (Annexure P/2) had not found that the suspension was wholly unjustified. It was found that the ^^*%, /^^ ^ f &'Q^ petitioner had committed some procedural irregularities for which warning was given to him to remain careful in future and as such the impugned order dated 19.1.2004, as well as the order dated 1.4.2005, passed on the representation of the petitioner, have been passed in accordance with law, which do not call for any interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. 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 Servant, he is not permitted to work keeping in view pendency of criminal 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 and others vs. B. G. Nambudiri2). 9. The order dated 28.8.2003 (Annexure P/2), whereby the departmental action was dropped and the suspension of the petitioner was revoked reads as under: "4/ ^t 'H^^ld ^ ^R^f? ^ H'g'^ STPN^TT ^ srf^FRT ^R f^R ^T^ ^ ^TPTT TT2TT f^» ^ft 'H^^ld "^ ^ft ^t^ ^fifk ^fe '•^ ^t 7T^ t f^rap^ ?TRfrr ^t ^t^ ^STf^T TT^^ft ?t 1 TK^ 'OT^ ST^T <^^ yf^-yi^<t> ^f^iT ara??r ^t ^ t', f^na^ f^n? ^r^' ^n^'ft f^TT uTHT 3)|c|SiA|cb f (TTf^? ^ft 'H^^ld. iTf^T ^' ^ft ^f^qf 'rT ^' 1 1 1989(1) SCC 546 2(1991)38cc38 ^^ "":";% ^^, ^ 1 p^—^9J/ "^-:^^i^ 5/ ^I^T: ^ft ^I^TcT, ^lgl^* ^rrf^PT-xTT ^t ^^T ^?^ ^ f^? ^ •HR^ ^' ^^ft TTf^^ll^cb ^f^ff ^T ^'^t, ^T^ R^ 'cT^r ^i ^r^?ur ^t WTP<T f^qr ^TKTT t ^ ^^' Pid^-i ^ ^T^T ^TT MTRTT t cfm y&ET srf^RT-TTT <frl^[d^, cTh? l^pqf^ I^TPT, f^dl>H^ ^' ^vf^ f^TT uTRTT t | " 10. It is evident that no damage was caused to the State by the act of the petitioner. There is no whisper of any of the instance of procedural irregularity, if any, alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. However, it is apparent that keeping in view that the petitioner was placed under suspension and some departmental proceeding was initiated, while revoking the suspension, the petitioner was warned simplicitor to remain careful in future. 11. Rule 10 ofthe Chhattisgarh Civil Ser^ices (Classification, Control 8& Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short (the Rules, 1966?) provides for Penalties. Sub-rule (i) of Rule 10 of the Rules, 1966 provides (Censure? as a minor penalty. A 'warning' to remain careful in future, that too without conducting a regular departmental enquiiy, does not come under any of the (Penalties? as.provided under Rule 10 of the Rules, 1966. Non grant of full pay and allowance for a period of about 8 months would certainly causo a huge financial loss to the petitioner. 12. The principle of law is well settled that no one can be condemned unheard. An opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner with regard to withholding of some portion of the payment of salary and allowances during the suspension period and the penalty has been determined separately by <warning\ The reliance of the respondents/State on the provisions of ^^^^^t ,^<0"-"-^. "^.. "^. ito. .^-^^^.' j ^^ 13. 14. 15. ^ F.R. 54-B is misplaced as if all the provisions are read together it is clear that the payment of salary and allowances may be withheld on reinstatement. The suspension is not a removal or termination from servrice which requires reinstatement. It is a simple and temporary deprivation of the functioning of the Government employee. Thus, there was no question of reinstatement of fhe petitioner to the service. The suspension has been revoked on account ofthe fact that no irregularity has been found to have been committed by the concerned authority. For the reasons afore-stated, this Court is of the considered opinion that non-grant of full pay and allowances during the suspension period i.e. 24.12.2002 to 28.8.2003 is harsh, causing huge financial loss to the petitioner, particularly when no damage was caused to the State by the alleged action of the petitioner. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.1.2004 (Annexure P/3) and the order dated 1.4.2005 (Annexure P/4) are quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pay and admissible allowances for the period 24.12.2002 to 28.8.2003, when he was kept under suspension. The amount may be calculated and payment may be made within a period of one month after adjustment of the amount of subsistence allowance, if any, paid to the petitioner. In the peculiar facts situation, no order asto costs. Thakur. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge