[(y‘ €44 ‘W ..........Wagg Ne..@..z BEFORE HON'BLE THE HIGH COURT OF CI-IHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Writ Petition {S} NoakNg /2009 gl,g;m;a.N.Ldl k Anil Kumar Srivastava“Aged about 45 years Foreman Incharge (Electrical & Mechanical) r Shiwani Mines - SECL ' Resident of B/ 122, Jarahi Colony PO. Bhatgaon Colliery, District. Surguja (C.G.) Petitioner :- Versus AL; Respondents :- . Union of India Through Ministry of Coal 3 1/A—Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-l .7. Sub Area Manager, Kalyani Sub Area, SECL, Bhatgaon Area PO.Bhatgaon Colliery,District—Surguja (C.G;) /3. Area Personnel Manager, (Office of the General Manager) SECL Bhatgaon Area PO.Bhatgaon Colliery,District—Surguja (C.G.) Colliery Manager, Shiwani Mines PO. Bhatgaon Area SECL POBhatgaon Collierypistrict-Surguja (C.G.) Chief General Manager, Bhatgaon Area, SECL PO.Bhatgaon Colliery,District-Surguja (C.G.) V‘Chief General Manager, (Head Quarter) Sipat Road, Bilaspur, SECL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE’226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : sILASPUR Wn’t Petition (S) No. 7443 of 2009 Petitioner Anil Kumar Srivastava Versus Respondents Union of India 85 others (Wn't Petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India) (SB: Hon’ble Shn' Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Ashok Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. 0 R D E R(Oral) (Passed on this 17th day of December, 2009) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Foreman Incharge (Electrical 8a Mechanical), Shivani Mines — S.E,C.L., Bhatgaon Area, District Surguja, was placed under suspension by order dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P/ 1). He further submits that the suspension-cum- charge sheet dated 17.8.2009 has been issued on account of malaiide exercise of powers, as the petitioner had been a witness to some illegal activities, committed by the superior ofhcer. The petitioner was threatened not to disclose the said incident to anybody or police. Thus, the charge sheet has been issued in malafide exercise of powers. There were other persons who had also witnessed the incident, like the petitioner, have been transferred to other areas. 2. Be that as it may, Without going into the allegations of the petitioner, since, the charge sheet has been issued and the ’ petitioner has been placed under suspension on the allegation of insubordination and misconduct, the charges are not ipso facto proved, unless the opportunity is given to the petitioner to rebut the charges. Thus, at this stage it will not be proper to entertain and quash the charge sheet when there are serious allegations against the petitioner which are to be proved in the disciplinary \ enquiry. \ é? The Supreme Court, in Tranzsport Commr, v. A Radha Krishna Moorthyk observed as under: “7. So far as the truth and correctness of the charges is concerned, it was not a matter for the Tribunal to go into —— more particularly at a stage prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry. As pointed out by this Court repeatedly, even when the matter comes to the Tribunal after the imposition of punishment, it has no jurisdiction to go into truth of the allegations/charges except in a case Where they are based on no evidence, i.e., Where they are perverse. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is akin to that of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is power of judicial review. lt only examines the procedural correctness of the decision-making process. For this reason the order of the Tribunal insofar as it goes into or discusses the truth and correctness of the charges, is unsustainable in lawr 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 iniluence in the proceedings and likely tampering with on records. (See P.L.Shah Vs. Union of India and another2, Union of india and others vs. E. G. Nambudiri3) In View of the foregoingfr there [is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed, accordingly. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thnkur. 1 ('1 995) 1 SOC 332 ‘2 1989(1) soc. 546 a 199 1)3 sec 38 x (