c'.e i^? ^J es ssSlllsSII' ^^ '•' BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. l^^t /2010. PETITIONER ^..--"... v^y^-^ ^^^k^ ^sy ,,'-'/^<_ ^,.y ^yy VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ 1. SN Jeevan Lal Burman, S/o. Sukhi Ram Burman, aged about- 39 years, Headmaster (Under suspension), Govt. Middle School, Bajarpara, Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), R/o. Village Barbaspur, District- Korba (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through- the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Additional Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Commissioner, Public Education Directorate, Raipur(C.G.) 4. The Collector, District- Jarijgir Champa (C.G.) ^ 5. The District Education Officer, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETLTIPNUNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OFJNDJA ^-.0 k^' ^5" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1274 of 2010 Jeevan Lal Barman. RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ajay Barik, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 26th day of March, 2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits thal while the petitioner was posted as Head Master at Government Middle School, Bazar Para, Baloda, District Janjgir Champa, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 20.08.2007 (Annexure P/1) on account of registration of criminal charges against him for commission of offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, he was released on bail. Thereafter, he made several representations for revocation of thesuspension order, but till date, the same has not been considered and decided. 2. Shri Barik further submits that according tothe circulars issued by the State Government from time to time, the departmental proceedings may be concluded within a stipulated period, .but in the case on hand, even afterlapse of fc-3i»ft:;a Ea?1''1 ^^ 'f.lBBF^ 5. about three years, no action has been taken. Thus, this petition. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and the documents appendedthereto. It is admitted fact that the criminal trial is pending against the petitioner. The suspension order is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guilty. It is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him. The suspension is temporary and it does not involve punishment with civil consequences. 'Suspension' means a temporary deprivation from the function not amounting to any reduction of his rank or his status. The employee under suspension continues to be a Government servant, he is not permitted to work keeping in view pendency of departmental enquiry to avoid undue influence in the departmental enquiry and likely tampering with on records. The Supreme Court, in P.L. Shah v.Union of India , observed as under: "6. An order of suspension is not an order imposing punishmenf on a person found to be guilty. It is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him...." This Court, in U.K.Pambhoi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others , observed that "The employee under suspension ' AIR 1989 SC 985 2 2006(1)c0u 229 .r'7-* ^^eg*\ '^ <??»-'"-•<•' E ^i'?^fc.SS-^f' Amit continues to be a government servant, he is not permitted to work keeping in view pendency of departmental enquiry to avoid undue influence in the departmental enquiry and likely tampering with on records." 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed being bereft of merit at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge