M {C{mZ/. lN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner w.P£$No. 4B OF 2007 /R3mlal Martand, Slo Shri Banwali Martand, aged about 44 years, presently working as Assistant Viilage Panchayat Officer, Village Panchayat - Godhi, Janpad Panchayat - Korba, Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh) Versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Comissioner, Panchayat & Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat - Korba, Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh) The Dy. Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, Korba (Chhattisgarh) The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat — Korba, Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh) Dube Chandra Daharia, S/o Slafi Member, Janpad Panchayat, Korba, Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh Respondents bl WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226Ig OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘2/ N HIGH COURT OF JUDIGATURE GHHA'I‘TISGARH: EILMPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agihoh-i, J. W. P. [8! No. 413 of 2007 Petitioner : Ramlal Martand Versus Respondent : State of Chhattisgarh & others Shn' Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' Sushi! Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the mspondents No. 1, 2 and 4. None for the respondents No. 3, 5 and 6. ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ ngs ORDER 1 Passed on this 23'“ day of Januaty, 2007) 1. By this petition, the petitioner has chalknged the impugned suspension onier dated 5‘ 12.2005 (Annme P/ 1). The petitioner was working as Assistant Village Panchayat 0Ecer at Village Panchayat - Godhi when the impugned suspension order was passed. 2. On perusal of the suspension order, it appeaxs that the petitioner has been put under suspension on account of alleged irregularities committed by him while worla'ng'as Assistant Gmm Panchayat O$cer at village — Godhi. Under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewices (Classiiication, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules, 1966’) any employee can be suspended where the disciplinaxy proceeding against him 1s contemplated or is pending. Looking to the charges stated in the suspension order it is clear that a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated against the petitioner. 070 3. The petin'oner, without waiu'ng for the charge sheet, as requimd in sub-mic (2) of Rule 9 ofthe Rules, 966, straightaway has come to 1 this Court. The petition is pmmatlue and at this stage the same cannot be entertained. 4. lt is well settled principle of law that the suspension is tempomry and it does not involve punishment with civil consequences. Suspension mea a temporaxy eprivation of the functions not ns d amounting to any Ieduch’on of s rank or his status. The hi employee under suspension continues to be a Government Servant, he is ot pertted to work keeping in view pendency of n mi departmental enqiry to avoid undue inhuence in the proceedings u of deptntal enqry and likely tampering with on reconis. arme ui 5. The petition is accordingly dismissed summarily. No Older as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri f i Judge i >