Petitioner Respondenis HiQH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 874 of 2009 Smt. Madhu Dhruv wife of Shri C.R. Dhruv, aged about 58 years, resident of Dalpat Sagar Ward Chitrakot Road, Jagdaipur, Bastar (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Triba! Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Manfraiaya, Raipur(CG). 2. Commissioner, Triba! Welfare Department, Raipur (CG). 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Dspartment, Jagdalpur, Bastar (CG). Writ Petition under Articie 226 of Constitution of india) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. RahuiJha, counse! for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 11th day of February, 2009) By this petition, the Detitioner challenaes the leaaiitv and validity of the order dated 4-2-2009, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the ground that there is an allegation of irreguSarifr^ committed in additional ailotment on ihe basis of the report dated 31-1-2009 submitted by the Assistant Commissioner. 2) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that prior to suspension order dated 4-2-2009 a show cause notice was issued on 31-1-2009 which^ according to the petitioner, was received on 4-2-2009, wherein an enquiry was proposed against the petitioner and she was catled upon to show cause to the charges mentioned therein. it is the contention of iearned counse! for the petitionerjhat once enquiry haa been initiated by show cause notice, there is no occasion to suspend the petitioner. 3) I have heard iearned counsei for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto; -•2-' 4) tt is well settled principies of law that the suspension is temporary and it does not invoive punishment with civi! consequences. Suspension means a temporary deprivation ofthe functions not amounting to any reduction of his rank or his status. The employee under suspension continues to be a Government sen/ant, he is not permitted to work keeping in view pendency of departmental enquiry to avoid undue influence in the proceeding of departmental enquiry and iikely tampering with the records. 5) In the case of Union of India & others Vs. E,G. Nambudiri', the Supreme Court has observed as under: "6........ !f the statutorv rules reauire communication of reasons, the same must be comnriunicated but in the absence of any such provision al?sence of communication of reasons do not affect the vaiidity of the order." 6) in the case of State ofMysore Vs. M.H. Beilary and Vidya DharPande V3, Vdyut Grih SikshaSani'ii and othsrs quest'on of tsrminatiQ" was unde.1' consideration invoivlng punishment with civil consequences. The Supreme Court sn P.L, Shah Vs.Union of india has considered nature of suspension and held as under: "6. An order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guiity. It is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him. Sucb proceedings should be compieted ex^dttioiu^^in^jthe p^ aiso in the interest of the Govemment seroant concerned. xxx xxx xxx" '-(1991) 3 SCC 38 2AIR1965SC868 3AIR1989SC341 4AIR 1989 SC 985 gass. -^- 7) In view of the well settled principles of law, the contention of the iearned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Consequentiy, I.A.No.1 aisostands dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Jiidge Raju