^ ^' C^('^ IN THE HIGH COVRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl No. 5r^if- /2006 PETITIONER ^- ^^.•••^- .•';^..--" )'v""" :f5'' t6--'' .*•" ^" ;SPONDENTS ^.< ^ Manharan lal Dhiver, aged about 32 /' years, S/o Shri Kartik Ram Dhiver, '' R/ o ViUage Tarenga, Tahsil ..••* „. . _...„. Bhatapara, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, / Through Secretary, Panchayat and Rujr-al Departnient, D.K.S. BAaw-an, Raipur 2. Joint Director . Panchayat and Social Welfare, Rai'pur (C.G.j 3. Chief Executive Officer,' Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara Distt. Raipur 4. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Tarenga, Tahsil Bhatapara Distt.Raipur. 5. The Collector Raipur .. 6. Parmanand Kashyap, Sahayak Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Tarenga, Tahsil Bhat-apara, Distt. Raipur WRIT PETITION UNDER^ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THB COlISTfTUTIOS OF INDIA ^, .^ ^e^ s^. 'y o ^- 4S1 ^^SS^^^^^^i WSy»BSHiirtiW!l[S!MiB"na<aiutulwuuh 1. HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESeARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (s) No. 5246 of 2006 Petitioner ; AAanharan lal Dhiver Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-isgarhA others Siigle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. AgnJhutri. Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for -the Petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, 6ovt. Advocate for -the State/respondents No. l,2and5. ORDER (Possed on 4th October, 2006) The petitioner, while working as Panchuyat Karmi, was appointed as Panchayort- Secre'tary in the year 1995. 2. The Prescribed Authority i^. Chief Executwe Officer, Jonpad Panchayat, Bhcrtupani, Distt. Raipur, by order dated 6.9.2006 (Annexure P/2), suspended the petitioner from workmg os Ponchoyat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Tarenga during pendency of the departmental enquiry on -the basis of serious allegations against him. 3. Be +hat os it moy, •Hie impugned order dated 6.9.2006 is not in the nature of removal order, but it appears to be the order of suspension facilitoting smooth conduct of enquiry against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel oppearin9 for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 6.9.2006 was passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Jcnpad Ponchoyat Bhatoparu, who is not the f- —^-^^•^.-c-K-^-^ (l/ t- Prescribed Authority for appointing Ponchoyat Secretary under Section 69 (1) of the Chhatt'isgarh Pcaichayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short "the Adhiniyam, 1993"). Thus, the impugned suspension order is bad in hw, unjust and without jurisdiction. 5. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner ond perused petition and documents onnexed thereto. It is true that the Joint birector/Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department is the competent officer under Section 69 (1) of the Rules, 1993 <is per notification No. 705/P/22/2003 dated 19.5.2003 issued by the State ©overnment. 6. The Chhatti^arh Civil Swrvwes (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short- "the Rules, 1966") provides for suspension under second proviso to Rule 9, if the order of aispension is made by on authority lower than the appointing outhority, aich outhority shall forthwi-Hi report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made. The Rules 1966 are applicable in cose of Panchoyat employee in respect of such fields, which are not governed as prescribed under the Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Rules made thereunder i.e. ChhatKsgarh Panchoyat 5ervice (biscipline ond Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for diort "the Rules, 1999"). Thus, the Rufes 1966 are opplicable to all the employees of the State fiovemments/Panchoyats. The facts of reporting suspension to !*' the Joint Director/Deputy Director, Panchoyat and Social Wetfare Oepartment, Raipur is bome out from the impugned order itself, which has been marked to the concemed authority. It is, therefore, held that the impugned suspension order was properly passed by the respondent No. 3. 7. It is well sett-led principle of law that the suspension is •temporary and it does not invotve puni^iment with civil consequences. Suspension means a temporary deprivation of •the functions not amounting to any reduction of his ronk or his status. The emptoyee under suspension continues to be a Sovernment Servant, he is not permitted to work keeping in view pendency of depotf-tmentat enquiry to avoid undue influence in the proceedings of depurtmental enquiry and likely tnmpering with on records. At this stage, it is not necessary to go into •the charges tevelled against the petitioner because it moy prejudice the case of the parties in the pending d^»arhnentalenquiry. 8. For the reasons sta'ted-above, no case has been made out for exercise of extniordinary power under Articte 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this writ petition is dismissed summarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Subhosh