Am) \.:/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER W.P.(S) No.2859 of 2007 RN. Dewangan, Slo Late Shri Y.K. Dewangan, Aged about 50 years, R/o Block Colony Marwahi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VefSuS 1. State of Chhattisgarh '— Through the $ecretary, Rural Engineering Services Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CE) ' The Coitector Bitaspur - cum — District Mission Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, San/a Shiksha Abhiyan, Biiaspur (C.G.) 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Ziia Panchayat, Biiaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of indie.) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present : Shri P. Diwakar, Senior Advocate with Shri K.S. Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Govt. Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 9‘“ May, 2007) By this petition, the petitioner has chaiienged the impugned suspension order dated 28.04.2007 (Annexure P/2). The petitioner was working as Sub Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Services, Pendra, district — Bilaspur, when the impugned suspension order was passed. 2. On perusal of the suspension order, it appears that the petitioner has been placed under suspension on account of alieged wrong valuation of the cost of construction work, under the Sarve Shiksha ‘Abhiyan in Primary School, Gullidand, Block -— Marwahi, whereby he has caused financial loss to the Government, as well as committed dereliction .of duties and irregularities in Government work. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner impugns the order dated 28.04.07 on three grounds. Firstly, in the impugned suspension order there is no mention of contemplation of inquiry. Secondly, the officer passingthe suspension order is not the disciplinary authority. Lastly, the officer passing the impugned order is not empowered in that behalf by the Governor. Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh CivilSen/ioes (Classification, Control & Appeal), 1 966 reads as under: V; \ "9 (1)The appointing authority or any authority ay autrit i s sdiate or t isciplinar athoity r ay o uthorty mpwered n tat behalf by te Gerr by gl r ecia ord may pac a Governnt an und susion — (a) or n hoy to whch it i uborn he dy ur o n ther ai eo i h h ovno enera o spl er, le me servt er spen wher iiliareding agaist hi is tel i, or hr c gi im in pec any wee a ase aanst h rest of criil en er investiatio, i or ri: () b mna offce is und gn inqury tal a ere ern shal ral e un usin he a o cri n voi rrutio rvt - mo tue i agan im: ve rther at hee r o uss ma a e the ponn autority, such authoy shal forhwth t h hich the order was made. Proidd fu th wr the orde f spenion is de by n authority lowr than apitig h rit l ti report'o te appointing authority the circumstances in w @ e a dscpny-proce n m conmpated or‘is pendng [Provided tht a Govnmnt Svat l invaiby be plac der spenso wn a challn fr a imnal offece inivng copn ooher ral urpitd is tled ist h] 7 t @ (2) A Government servant shaH be deemed to ' have been place under suspension'by an order of appointing authority — with effect from the date of his detention, if he r is detained in custody whether on a criminal ' charge or otherwise for a period exceeding forty-eight hours; W (a) (b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of conviction for an offence, he is sentences to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsoriiy retired consequent to su,‘ conviction. Explanation. — The period of forty-eight hours referred to in clause (b) of this sub-rule shall be computed ‘ from the commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and for this 'purpose, intermittent periods 'of imprisonment, if'any, shall be taken into account. [(2-a) Where a Govemment servant is placed ' nder suspension under clause (a)aof sub-rule (1), the f ‘ rder 'of suspension shall contain the reasons for makingsuch order and where it is proposed to hold n enquiry against such Government servant under .rule‘ 14, a copy of the articles of charges, the statement ' of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior and a list of documents and witnesses by‘ 7 (which each- article of charge is proposed to be sustained shall be issued or caused to be issued by the disciplinary authority to such Government servant as required ‘b’y sub-rule (4) 0f Rule 14, Within ‘a period of 45 days from the date of order of suspension: ,__ ch u o a Provided that where the disciplinary guthority is t Stte Government, the copy of charges and‘other docuents mentioned above shail be “issued or s to be issued to such Government servant 'within period of 90 days from the date of order of spe he a m caued a usnsion]. (2-b) Where the disciplinary authority fails to iss to the Government Servant, a copy of the chares and other documents referred to in sub-rule ( ithin the period of 45 days, the disciplinary uthity shall, before expiry of the said period, obtai rs ”in writing of the State Government for aor n orde > xtension of the said period‘of suspension: e Provided that the period of suspension shall in no ase be enhanced beyond a period/of 90 day fr e date of the order of sUspension. (3) (4) (5) XXX 4. ‘ Reading of the provisions of Rule 9 makes it clear that any authority subordinate to the disciplinary authority or any other authority which is not in the channel of service; empowered on behalf of the Governor by general or special order, can place an employee on suspension. Other authorityvempowéred by the Governor means not the authority in the channel of service of the petitioner or in deputatio but other authority who has nothing to do with the functioning of the employee. . Learned counsel, except making the bald statement, has notproduced any other relevant document in support of his contention @ ue g 2-a) w c s om th n @ to establish the fact that the authority who has passed the suspension order was not dealing with the functioning of the employee and he was ‘ l not empowered by the Governor by special or general order. 5. lt is further provided in second proviso to Rule 9 (1) that where the order of suspension is‘made by any authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order is made. 6. In the case of State of Mysore Vs. M.H. Bellary, reported in AIR 1965 SC 868 and in Vidya Dhar Pande Vs. Vidyut Grih Siksha Samiti and Others, reported in AIR 1989 SC 341, question of termination was under consideration involving punishment with civil consequences. The Supreme Court in P.L. Shah Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1989 SC 985 has considered the nature of suspension and held as under: “An order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guilty. lt is an order made against him before/he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him. such proceedings should be completed expeditiously in the public interest and also in the interest and also in the interest of the GOVernment servant concerned. xxx xxx )006' -lt is well settled 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 W—Ny - - amounting to any reduction of his rank or’ his status. The employee undervsuspension continues to be a Government Servantr'he’ js not permitted to work ‘ keeping in View pendency of'departmental enquiry to ’ ‘ ‘avoid undue influence in the prOceedings of departmental enquiry and likely tampering wrth on records At thls stage It In not necessary to go Into the charges leveled against the petitioner because It , may prejudice the case, of the \parties‘ wherein the / / respondents are likely to initiate the departmental i enquiry"; ‘ 7. The impugned order clearly statesthat order of the suspension was reported to all the officers including the appointing authority vide (Annexure P12) dated 28.04.07. 8. ‘ Vln‘ the. present Case, the Chief Executive OfFIcer Janpand- Panchayat, Bilaspur has passed an order, which was approved by the Collector and District Mission Director. With regard to mentioning of contemplation of inquiry in the suspension Order, the irregularities purportedly committed by the petitioner have been stated in the, impugned sUspension order, which clearly indicate that the inquiry was 3 under contemplation. Rule 9 (2-a) and (2-b) take care of such situation where the enquiry has-not-been initiated within the 45 or 90 days, as v the case may be. 9. . Rellance of learned counsel on the order 22 06 06 passed by Wnt ‘ Petition No 2918 of 2006 (V K Kesharwanl Vs State of Chhattlsgarh and another) This Court has In the order granting relief observed that . while passmg the suspenslon order there should be a clear statement " that there Is proposed Inquiry under contemplation The petitioner has not produced a copy ‘of the final order, if any, passed in W.P. No.291 8 of 2006. 10. As a result and for’forgoing reasons, this petition is dismissed. Sd/— i Satish K. Agnihotri K Judge i L _. _ 7 \‘_,,_._...‘“V”