/-' r' '^S.i T%1 •:i'.?ssa!"ilE''" 5 ^ BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH ) W.A. No. \\^- of 2010 Appellant Petitioner Respondents y / J/ A^/ ,^i/ ^/y cysy ^t^ -'''' .•' Af7''/y./ ^7 .'&-' Bharat Ram Sahu S/o Bodiram, aged about 49 years, R/o Balak High School Road Ward No. 4, Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2) Collector Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3) Sub Division Officer Patan, Distt. Durg (C.G.) V? WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1)0F THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT 2006. "Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.04.2010 passed by the Coyrt of Hon'ble Single Bench of Justice Shri Satish Kumar Agnihotri Ji, in W.P.(S) No. 1562/2010, bearing parties Bharat Ram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, the above named appellant prefers this appeal against the said order on the basis of following of facts and grounds" V'S&s'sSiSSS'SsgSs'S! ^-S ^ SE n HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGAIIH AT BILASPUR D. B; ADpellant; Respondent Hon'ble Shri I.M. Ouddusi, Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Writ Appeal No.112/2010 Bharat Ram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others Appearance: Mr. T. K. Tlwari, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, counsel for respondent no.l. Writ Apoeal under Section 2 fll of the Chhatlisaarh Hiah Court fAppeal to Division Benchl Acl»2006 ORAL OIIDER (29.04.2010) Per I.M. OUDDUSI. 3 1. Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 12.04.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.1562/2010 dismissing the said writ petition. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the writ appellant was aliegedly caught red handed by the vigllance team while taking bribe. Consequently an order for suspension was passed on 14.07.2008 suspending hlm from the post of Patwari by order of Collector (Land Records), Durg. In that order it was mentloned that on 25.06.2008 the writ appellant caught red handed while taking bribe of Rs.1500/- and thfs act is contrary to Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Servlces (Conduct) Rutes, 1965 and as ?uch he was placed under suspension with immediate <^ effect. Thereafter on 03.02.2009, the suspenslon order was revoked. 4. On conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the writ appeltant. Consequent to which, he was placed under suspension again by orderdated 23 March, 2010. A special case was registered as 02/2010 agalnst the petitioner. 5. Rule 9(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 deals with suspension. It provides that the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disclplinary authorlty or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspenslon in the following drcumstances : (a) Where a disciplinary proceedlng 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 : Further, there are two provisos. According to the flrst proviso, a Government Servant shall invariably be placed under suspension when a challan for a criminal offence involving corruption or other moral turpltude is filed . against him. 6. Learned counsel for the writ appellant raises the contention that once the suspensjon order was passed and revoked, the order of re-suspension could not have been passed and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law as the order of revocation cannot be reviewed. aaaBBl6Wff(rS^SffS^^ <y^ 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the appeal and submits that there Is no illegallty in the impugned second order of suspension. He placed reliance on thededsion of M.P. Hlgh Court (Gwalior Bench) in Letters Patent Appeal No.202/1999 {Chandra Pal Smgh Pundhlr -vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Educatlon, Bhopal and others) reported in 2002 (4) M.P.H.T. 213 (DB) which was flled against the order of learned Single Judge in the writ petition, in which the second order of suspension was under challenge. The learned single judge ofM.P. High Court has observed that considerlng the ratlo laid down by the Supreme Court in U.P. Rajya Krlshl Wpadan Maiidl Pafrlshad Vs. Rajw Rajan reported m 1S93 Supp. (3) SCC 483, the order passed by the Board, suspending the petitioner agaln appears to be proper and there is no reason to interfere with the order of the suspension passed by the Board. Slmilar contention was raised in LPA that the second suspenslon order amounts to revlew. Referring to first proviso to Clause (1) of Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Clvll Servlces (Classfflcation, Control and Appeal) Rules In the said case i.e., Chandrapal Singh Pundhir (supra), the Dlvlsion Bench of M.P. High Court observed that the second suspension order was passed by the Chairman of the Board on pendency of Criminal Case No.2690/1998 against the petitioner and in the second order of suspenslon, it was speciflcally mentioned that Ipoklng to the nature of criminal case, the second suspension order is passed. Therefore, the Division Bench HIBBBBSg riSf<?WL-"t! i?WL""» A? ^"-"^ ^ /f' €" 't '", j'K ;^-Bsgg ^: t- S *11 '•^, ?e^^£^ ^ ;pKa-i"'-' ^' :': .^w'y-"f.£;; opined that It is not a review ofthe first suspension order and further in case of U.P. Rajya Uipadan Mandi Parishad Vs. Rajiv Rajan (supra), it has been clearly taid down by the Apex Court that there is no restriction on the authority to pass a suspension order for the second time. ^ ||S 8. We have perused the first suspension order which was not passed on the basis of any jnvestigation or trial but was passed on the allegation that his act was contrary to Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Servlces (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and the said suspension on that ground was revoked. But the impugned order of suspension has been passed on submission of the charge-sheet against the writ appellant in the criminal court which is permissible in view of first proviso to Clause (1) of Rule 9 of CCA Rules that on submission of Challan for a criminal offence in the Court involving corruptlon or other moral turpltude the Government servant shatl invariably be placed under suspension and therefore, it cannot be termed as Review or a second order. In fact under that provision the impugned order was the first order of suspension. 9. In view of the above, we do not flnd It a fit case for interference in the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal Is, therefore, misconceived and Is dismissed at the admission stage. T^ f'p' <-^r^"r^^'L 10. However, this will not debar the petltioner from flling an appeal if the impugned order of suspension is appealable. No cost. ^-- s^-. „, lM.QUddusv l"" 3ud&e Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao Bu!;:JII ;jKSiliHS