INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No, ^S" ./2009.. Petitioner: 4. Jagnarayan Singh, S/o late Shri Indradeo Singh, aged about 52 years, occupation - Clerk Grade-I, R/o Quarter No. B/243, Resque Line, Jarhi, Post Bhatgaon, District Sarguja, posted at South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. DispenSary, Jarhi, Post Bhatgaon, Districf Sarguja (CG). Versus South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Through its ChiefManaging Director, Sipat Road, Bilaspur (CG). Chief General Manager/Area Security Officer, SECL Bhatgaon Area, Bhatgaon, Post Bhatgaon, District Sarguja (CG). Area Personnel Manager, SECL, Bhatgaon Area, Post Bhatgaon, District Sarguja (CG). Medical Superintendent, Urga Nagar Chikitsalaya, Jarhi, Post Bhatgaon, District Sarguja (CG). WRIT PETITOIN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH i BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2950 of2009 Petitioner Jagnarayan Singh Versus Respondents South Eastern Coal Fields Limited 8s others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitudon oflndia) (SB: HonTsle Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Pallav Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms Meera Jayaswal, Advocate for the respondents. OR D E R(OraI) (Passed on this 11th day of Febmary, 2010) Heard. 1. The petitioner by this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of the departmental enquiiy, initiated against the petitioner on 27th January, 2009 and further quashing of the suspension order dated 27.1.2009 (Annexure P/l) and the order to charge penal rent; 2. The petitioner was working .as Clerk Grade-I when the above stated order was passed. On perusal of the order dated 27.1.2009 it is evident that the charge sheet was issued on the allegation that the petitioner has occupied the accommodation unauthorizedly. Further, the penal rent was directed to be recovered from the petitioner for the occupation of such accommodation illegally and unauthorizedly. The petitioner was placed under suspension along with the issue of the charge sheet. The petitioner seeks quashing of the above stated order dated 27.1.2009. 3. Shri Pallav Mishra, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no subsistence allowance is being paid to the petitioner during the suspension period, the enquiry is pending since 9.3.2009 and penal rent of the accommodation is being charged from the petitioner. ^t9-. ^ s'^ '% fSSsSa S £S3!'^^, ^ ^'•%B<^ ^3!S-KSls^ 6. 7. Shri H. B. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms Meera Jayaswal, learned counsel, submits that the enquiry has been initiated on the basis of the serious allegation of occupying an accommodation illegally and unauthorizedly and the petitioner was also suspended by the same order. During the suspension period the petitioner is being paid the admissible subsistence allowance, in accordance with law. However, if the subsistence allowance is not paid, the same shall be released fQrthwith and the respondents would try to conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible. Be that as it may, without going into the allegations of the petidoner, since the charge sheet has been issued and the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the allegation of illegally and unauthorizedly occupying accommodation/property of the respondents, the charges are not ipso facto proved, unless the opportunity is given to the petidoner to rebut the charges. Thus, at this stage it will not be proper to entertain and quash the departniental enquiry/charge sheet when there is serious allegation against the petitioner which is to be proved in the disciplinaiy enquiiy. If in the departanental enquiry it is found that the occupation of the petitioner was legal, the petitioner is at liberty to seek quashing ofthe order for imposition ofpenalrent, ifso advised. The Supreme Court, in Transport Com.mr. v. A. Radha Krishna Moorthy1, observed as under: "7. So far as the fruth and correcfa'iess of the charges is concerned, it was not a matter for the Tribunal to go into — more particularly at a stage prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry. As pointed out by this Court repeatedly, even when the inatter comes to the Tribunal after the imposition of punishment, it has no jurisdiction to go into truth of the allegadons/charges except in a case where they are based on no evidence, i.e., where they are perverse. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is akin to that of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is power of judicial review. It only examines the procedural correctness of the decision- making process. For this reason the order of the Tribunal insofar as it goes into or discusses the (1995) 1 SCC332 8. 9. 10. truth and correctness of the charges, is unsustainable in law. It is well setded principle of law that the suspension is temporary and it does not involve punishment with civil consequences. Suspension means a temporary deprivation of the functions not amounting to any reduction of rank or status. The employee under suspension continues to be a Governraent Servant, he is not permitted to work keeping in view pendency of criminal trial or departinental enquiiy to avoid undue influence in the proceedings and likely tampering with on records. (See P.L.Shah Vs. Union of India and another2, Union of India and others vs. E. G. Nambudiri3) Having regard to the facts situation of the case that the charge sheet was issued on 27.1.2009, it isjust and expedient to direct that the enquiry may be concluded, as expeditiously, as possible. If the petitioner is not being paid subsistence allowance, the same shall be paid in accordance with law. As a result, the petition stands disposed of, accordingly. No order asto costs. Thakur. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge :-l^-'=^^)^r- 2 1989(1) SCC 546 3(1991)33cc38