AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITICN (S) NO. 4425 OF 2008 PETITIONER Dr. L.P. Singh, aged 52 years, 5/6 Shri J P Singh, working as Veterinary Extensi-OH Offucer, At —~ 0/0 Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Kanker, District Kanker (CG. Versus RE5PONDENTS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through — The Secretary. Depaiiment of Veterinary & Animal Husbandry, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. The Director; Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh. The Collector, District Kanker (CG). Dr. D.S. Dhruva, The Deputy Director, Veterinary Services District Kanker (CG). 5. Dr S K Srrmour Veterinary Asstt Surgeon Kanker Drstt Kanker (CG) 6. Brdhan Chandra Mandel, Veterinary Field Ofticer, Artificial information Center, Kanker, Distt. Kanker (CG). 7. Pramod Tiwari, Asstt. Veterinary Fieicl Officer, O/o Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Kanker, Distt. Kanker (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia) single Bench: Hon’ble shri satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present : Shri R.K. Kesharwani, counsel for the petitioner. Shri MRS. Bhatia, Dy. Govt, Advocate for the State] respondents No.1, 2 & 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 13‘“ day of August, 2008) Being aggrieved by the suspension order dated 18-9—2007 (Annexure-Pl1) the petitioner has preferred this petition on the ground that the same has been passed In maia fde exercise of power 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents No.4, 5, 6 & 7 are working in the Veterinary Department, Kanker, they joined together against the petitioner and created influence over the Government to pass suspension order against the petitioner. Learned counsel relies on the complaint dated Nil (Annexure-P/7) in order to support his contention with regard to male tide exercise of power. . —er.- W ”\‘l (l M ‘s «3 \ ‘r x .w, .; x ) 3) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, perused the pleadings and the dacuments appended thereto. in the impugned order dated 18-9-2007 (AnnexurePH) it is clearly stated that in preliminary enquiry, charges 0f financial irregularities have been found proved. 0n the basis of preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter, admittedly enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is pending consideration. 4) The allegation of mala tide and other illegalities or irregularities. if any, can very well be raised before the departmental enquiry. The requirement of placing an employee under suspension is contemplation of disciplinary action or a pending departmental enquiry. The allegations made by the petitioner in this petition to revoke suspension are not sustainable, as the enquiry is already pending consideration. Whatever the grievances the petitioner has, he can agitate before the disciplinary authority to get exoneration from the departmental enquiry, if any. 5) ’ Learned counsel for the petitioner further questions delay in completion of the enquiw. The same is not subject matter in this petition; therefore, it is not necessary to go into the submission of the petitioner. 6) In the case of Union of India and others vs. E.G. Nambudiri‘, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “6. . . .Jf the statutory rules require communication of reasons, the same must be communicated but in the absence of any such provision absence of communication of reasons do not affect the validity of the order.“ 7) The Supreme Court in the matter of P.L. Shah Vs. Union of lndia and anotherz observed as under : “6. An order of suspension 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 ..... " 8) The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Qrissa through its Principal Secretary, Home Dept. vs. Bimal Kumar Mohantya. observed as under : 1 (1991) 3 SCC 38 2 (1989) 1 SCC 546 3 (1994) 4 scc 12s “13. . . Jt is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application . of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. lt would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. lt should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee.‘ The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. ln other words it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the Witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. lt would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala tides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent‘s continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge.” The identical question came up for consideration before this Court in the matter of U.K. Pambhoi vs. State of G.G. & Others“, wherein it was observed as under : “16. it is well settied principle of law that the suspension is temporary and it does not invoive punishment with civii consequences. Suspension means a temporary deprivation of the functions 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 proceedings of departmental enquiry and likely tampering with on records. At this stage it is not necessary to go into the charges levelled against the petitioner because it may prejudice the case of the parties wherein the respondents are likely to initiate the department enquiry. impugned order was passed on 27-5-2005 by the State Government..... " Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand’and in view of the foregoing reasons, the petition stands dismissed at the motion stage itself. Satish K. Agnihotril‘ Judge Sdl- 4 2006 (1) CGLJ 229