^ t^2 ENT THE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION (s)VO.^W /2010 B.K. Verma, S/o- Late Shri Fulgo Prasad Venna, Aged about 53 years, Presently workmg as Project Ofdcer- Zila Panchayat- Durg. Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh, Through- Secretary/Additional Secretary, Deptt. ofPanchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Collector, Durg, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER 3. ChiefExecutive OfGcer, Zila Paachayat- Durg, Distt. Durg, Chliattisgarh. RESPONDENTS ,WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION '^ ,OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATEWRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAIVIUS. CERTIORARI ETC. ^ \" 1%^ HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S)N0.5141 OF 2010 Petitioner Versus ReSDondents B.K.Verma State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226ofthe Constitution oflndia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. ShriA.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 14 day of January, 2011) 1. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 23/08Y2010 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with'the transfer •V- order. 2. Be that as it may, without going into the facts of the case, where there is compliance of the order or not, the question involved in the case asto whether suspension can be ordered by way of punishment under provisipns of Rule 9(1) ofthe Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control& Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for shori: "the Rules, 1966"). Indisputably, there is no other provision except Rule 9 of the Rule, 1966 which provides for placing^an employee under suspension. There are only two conditions where an employee can be placedunder suspension. Rule 9(1)0fthe Rule 1966 provides for suspension in following cases:- (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation,inquiry ortrial" 37 '<,' 3. On query, whether a criminal case is pending or any criminal offence has been filed or any other departmental-enquiry was -^- contemplated or pending consideration, Shri Sridhar, learned Panel Lawyerappearing for the State submits that no enquirywas contemplated against the petitioner. 4. Sub-rule (2-a) ofthe Rule 9 ofthe Rules, 1966 prescribes fortime limit for placing under suspension after the order of suspension is passed. If the order is passed by other than the State Government, employee cannot be placed under suspension for •f more than 45 days and if it is passed by the State Governmentthe period is 90 days. 5. Sub-rules (2-a) and (2-b) of Rule 9 of theRules; 1966 read as under: "(2-a). Where a Government servant is placed undersuspension under clause (a) of sub- rule (1), the order of suspensi6n shall contain the reasons fdr making Such order and where it is proposed to hold an enquiry against such Government servant under rule 14, a cppy of the articles of charges, the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of chargeis proposed to be sustained shall be issued or caused to be issued by the disciplinary authority to such Governmentservant as required bysub-rule (4) of Rule 14, within a period of 45 days from the date of order of suspension: Provided that where the disciplinary authority is the State Government, the cppy of charges and other documents mentioned aboveshall be issued orcaused to be issuedtosuchGovernmentservant within a period of 90 days from the date of order of suspension. •r - (2-b) Wherethedisciplinaryauthorityfailsto * issue to the GQvernment servant, a copy of the charges arid other documents referred to in sub- rule (2-a) within the period pf 45 days, the disciplinary authority shall, before expiry of the said period, obtain orders in writing of the State Gpvernment for extehsion df the said period of suspension: ,;'>^' y ^'^•^s. 'i-y .^''"'""'^ %k lft91!Sff?8::i, '^^)-'.^,^ ^ Provided that the period ofsuspension shall in no case be enhanced beyohd a period of 90 days from the date of the order of suspension." 6. The impugned order was passed on 23/08/2010 thereafter, no enquiry or department enquiry has been initiated till date for more than 120 days. Even, if there was a contemplation of enquiry that cannot be relied upon forsustaining the suspension order after 45 days or 90 days, as the case may be. 7. In view of foregoing, the impugned suspension order dated 23/08/2010 (Annexure P/1) placing the petitioner under suspension without any departmental enquiry or without being criminal offence against the petitioner, is quashed. However, respondent authorities may take appropriate action< if so advised in accordance with law. ' 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed t6 the above extent. 9. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge k •0 Arun ,-fc"