^^-<^/—^ Singlff^ench' /^' IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l WRIT PETITION (Sl N0. - C(^^^ OF 2006 PETITIONER .^^ Paltan -Lal Patel S/o Late Shri ^- Kirtan Lal Patel, Aged about 50 years, R/o Village- Naurangpur, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) yay».... t'^-" RESPONDENTS VERSUS / ^>/ ^^ ^ ^^y [^^ ^* ..^ v> 1] State of Chhattisgarh,/-" Through: Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2] The District Education Officer, , District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3] The Collector, Raigarh y District- Raigarh (C.G.). 4^ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMDTANCES OF THE CASE. ^ ^ MGH CSOURT OP JUDICATURB CHHAimSGARH: BILASPUR Stn^le Beach: Hon'Me Shrl Sattsh K. Agnlhotel, J. W. PfiWo, 4776 of 3QQ6 Pctitioner : Paltan I<al Patel Versus Respondent : Stete of Chhattisgarh & others STiri S. K. T'hyari, Aflvocafe <br tlie pctitioner. Sbri V. V. S. Moorthy, Depnty Advocate General with Sint. Anju Ahiaja, neputy Govt. Advocate for thr. re'spondents. ( ''' ( 4th Septeinber, 3006} 1. In fhe pwsent petition, the petitioner seeks qiiashing o{ the suspension order dated 8.8.3006 (AnnexiiTC' P/2) wherein it is provided fhat on accoiint of petitioner' tcmaining ahseut ftnin diity and negligent in his vpork, he has been placed iinder siispension. 2. Leamed coiinsrl appearing for the pefitioncr limpugns the order of siispensi'on on the gniiind that thcTf is nn flepartmentel enqiiiry pendmg or no cnqiiiry has been helrl before passjng the impugncd suspcnsioo onler. No otTier gmiind is raised toy the petitioner. 3. I^eamed coiinse) appearing for the re-spondents stibmits that there is an enqiiiiy coriteroplated against thc petitioner. 4. It is well settleri principle oflaw that the siispension is temporaiy and it does not involve p»nishtnentwith fivfl cOTiseqiiences. Suspension Tneans a tempOTEiiy rleprivation of tlie functions not amoiinting to any rcriiiction of bis fanl? or his status. The employee iinder suspension coDtinues to he a Govemment Scrvant, he is not perinjttRd to work L" A kecping in view pendency nf rleparbmentsl enquity to avoid iiTidue infliience in ttie pTnceedings of departmental enquiiy and likely taTnpRring with on wRonls. At this stage is it not ncccssary to go jnto fhe cliarges levRllcrl against the petitioner hecanse it niay prejiidice tbc case ofthe partieR in the pfTirting rlepartmental enqiiiiy. 5. In vifw nf tlic fon"goiTig, the pRtJfion is disinissRd. Therf shall tte no onler as to costs. ; Satish K. Agnihotri Judge