c S.v.6^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR ICHHAmSGARHl W.P.NO. l7£yZ-OF2004 PETITIQNER V.- ^ ^ ./•^^ ^yy' ^ RESPONDBNTS ?\. /^^.:^. // ~ ^"^"""^ \., ••„ ' ••. '^ <• ^. ''i,"':->'" -..-... -.^ Smt. Philomina Ekka, W/o Shri Amrit Kumar Ekka, Aged about years, Occupation -Service, posted As Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari[ICDS],Department Of Mahila Avam Bal Vikas, Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa [Chhattisgarh] VER S U S ^' / 1. State of Chliattisgarh Through the Secretary^ Department of Mahila Avam Bal Vikas Tatha Samaj Kalyan, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur [Chhattisgarh] 2. Zila Mahila Avam Bal Vikas Adhikari, District Janjgir- Champa [Chhattisgarh] 3. Smt.Anita Agrawaljncharge District Programme Officer, -' ^. Department of Mahila Avam BalVikas, Janjgir-Champa. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS PRQHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER ORORDERS: W^K^"^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1782 of 2004 Petitioner Snit, Philoiaina Ekka •^ 'F ^ Versus Respondents State of Chhatdsgarh & ofhers Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate wifh. Smt Sniita Gb.ai, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Sint. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for fhe Respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Pankaj Shnvastava, Advocate forthe Respondent No. 3, ORAL ORDER ( 5'^Iay 2006) This order ofthe Court was passed by Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. 1, The present petition impugns fhe suspension order dated 21.5.2004 (Annexure P/l). 2, The undisputed facts of the case are. that at fhe relevaiit time, the petitioiier was employed as Child Development aad Project OfiEicer at Navagarh Distdct- Jaojgir Cham.pa. The ioipugned order dated 21,5,2004, placuig the petitioner under suspension was passed under Rule 9 (l)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Contnol aad Appeal) Rules, 1966 on fh.e ground fhat the petitioner as Project Officer ia the Integrated ChUd Welfarc Project, Navagarh has committed UTegularity in "Ready-to-Eaf, autritious food schenie. Beuig aggrieved, fhe petitioner has filed fhis petiition uader Article 226 of the Constitution of India seekiag a writ in. the nature of certiorari for quashiag fhe ioipugned suspension order dated 21,5.2004 and further a writ of inaadanius cominanduig fhe respoudents to reiastate the petitioner in sen/ice with aU consequential benefits etc, Shri Ashish Shrivastava wifh Sint. Smita Ghai, learaed counsel, appearfag for the petitioner submiits that fhe suspension order has been passed with niala&de niotive as the action has been taken agaiast fhe petitioner by unposuig niuior penalty of withliolduig one uicrement wifhout cumulative effect on 18.5.2004 for fhe saaie charges, It is fzirther snbniitted fhat fhe respondent No,3 beiag District Programitie Officer of fhe Departraent of MahUa & Bal Vikas, Janjgir Champa, has anunosity agaio.st fhe petitioner and accordiagly she caused to get this inipugned order isszied. Thus, fhe impiigned order deser^es to be quashed, Snit. Anjii Ahnuja, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 aad 2 subiaits fhat fhe inipugned suspension order was not passed at fhe behest of any officer. The order was passed keeping in view tihie irrcgularity committed by fhe petitioner m "Ready-to-Eaf aiitritious food scheme. It is further submitted fhat siace the charge sheet has been isszied and the enqiiiry is pendiag consideration, at fhis stage fhis Court should not mterferc wifh fhe impugned order. Shri Paakaj Shrivastava, leamed coiinsel appearmg for fhe respondeat No.3, whUe adoptiag fhe subniissions niade by learaed counsel for fhe respondents No, 1 and 2, submits fhat the aUegations inade agaiast the respondent No.3 are baseless, frivolous aad wifhout any siibstance. It is forfher submitted that the respondent No,3 was on laatemity leave during fhe period when the aUeged irregularities were coniraitted by the petitioner. Be fhat as it niay, haviag regard to fhe facts and circiimstaaces of fhe case, when the charge sheet has been issued aiid fhe departmental enquiry is pending consideration, it is not necessaiy to go iiito the TTZ ^ 8. allegations and counter aUegations niade by flie parties aad further, it is not necessary to go iiito the legality/vaUdity offhe impugned order at fhis stage, It is weU settiled principle of law fhat fhe suspension is teinporaxy and it does not irivolve punishment with civil consequences. Suspension xneans a temporaiy deprivation of the functions not asnountmg to auy reduction ofhis rank or his ^tatus. The employee under suspension continues to be a Goverament Servant he is not pennitted to work keeping iii view pendency of departmental enquiiy to avoid undue iafluence iii fhe proceedings of departaiental enquuy and Ukely taoipering wifh on records. At this st^e it is not necessaiy to go iato fhe charges leveUed agamst fhe petitioner becazise it may prejiidice the case of the parties ia the pendinig departinental enquiiy. Further, m view of fhe fact that the petitioner is placed under suspension by order dated 21,5,2004, it is necessaiy that fhe enquity officer should coiaplete fhe enquuy as expeditiously as possibk, preferably wifhia a period offhree inonths, For fhe rcasons stated above fhis petition stands disposed of, No order as to costs. C^rti&ed copy, as per Rules. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur