W HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHA‘I‘TISGARH: BILAQPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Ayihoui, J. W. P. [g1 No. 1059 of 2008 Petitioner Shami Lal Sahu, Aged ~ 35 years, S/o Shri Gahiru Ram Sah , Working as - l’atwan’ (Suspended) at ~ P.H.No.15, Tchsil - Gurur, District ‘ Durg (C.G.), R/o Village —— Kaneri, Tehsil — Gmur, Distn‘ct~ Uurg (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1, State of Chham'sgarh, Through — The Secretaxy, Department of Revenue, Manimlaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. The Collector (Land Record), District - Durg (C.G.) Sub- Divisional Oocm' (Revenue), Sub; Division - Balod, District - Durg (C.G.) 4. The Tehsildar, Gurur, District — Durg (C.G.) Shri R. K. Keshaxwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A. S. Gabarwar, Additional Advocate General for the respondents. ORAL ORDER ( Passed on this 20*“ day of Febxuary, 2008) 1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned suspension oxder dated 2’7. 1 1.2007 (Annexure P/ I) as well as the communication order dated 3. 12.2007 (Annexune P/3). 2. The petitioner was working as Patwan', posted at patwari halka number 15, Tahsil Gurur, Dism'ct Burg. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 27.11.2007 {Annexme P/ 1) by the Sub Divisional Ollicer (Revenue) .Balod, on the ground that he remained absent from the head quarter during some inspection. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation on 29.11.2007 (Annexure P/2) to the respondent No.3. The respondent No.4 by *1,— communication dated 3. 12.2007(Annexure Pl 3) has informed that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. . Being aggrieved, the petiiioner has impugned the suepension oxder dated 27. 11.2007 and the communication dated 3. 12.2007, on dle ground that the suspension of the petitioner is Without any basis and Without conducting a preliminary enquiry, as per the order dated 23.3.1989 (Annexum PIS), issued by the Revenue Department of the then State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Learned counsel further submits that the suspension of the petitioner amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the same was passed with ulterior motive. He next submits that the rejection of the representation of the petitioner does not contain reasons, thus the same is without application of mind. . Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, by which services of the petitioner is governed, provides for suspension. Any circular, contrary to the provisions of the enactment cannot have overriding en‘ect or cannot substitute the substantial provisions of law. The law is very clear, in the case of suspension, any emphyee can be placed under suspension, where the disciplinary pmceeding against him is contemplated or criminal trial is pending. 1t appears, that the petitioner, thereafter, has been served charge sheet also, on 20.12.2007(Annexme PIG). The petitioner has failed to prove that the impugned suspension order was passed with ulterior motive or there are any discrimination, arbitrariness or unreasonableness to establish violation of Articles 14 and 16‘ of the Constitution of I India. The contention'in this regard, of the petitioner, is rejected. /} i i i i i i 1 i y}- 5. Thus, it cannot be held that without contempiation of any cnquixy against the petitioner the suspension order Was passed. Thus, the suspension order swms to be just and pmper and in accotdance with law. 6. It is well settled pn'nciple of law that the suspension is tempmary and it does not involve punishment with civil consequences. Suspension means a temporaxy 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 iniluenoe in the proceedings of depanmental enquiry and likely tampering with the reconls. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed, summarily. f sen J f SatishiK. Agnihotri 5‘ ' udgev