1 t § I ‘ ‘ ‘ WA IN THE HIGH COURT OF (/HHATTI8LxARL—l : BILASPUR Wnt Petmon (S) No 1823 of 2&09 Versus Admmlstratlon, D K§ Bhawan Mantralaya V Ralpur (C G ) (CG) Petih’onér Anil Shanna, 5/0 ate Shri Balmukund Shanna, aged abo'ut 50 years, Rfo Yadunandan Nagar 116a; Saraswau Sh1shu Mardm Bllaspur (C G ) R€spondents 1. state of Chhattlsgaxh lhrough the bécretary, ‘ ‘ Department of Urban Development & 2. ‘ ‘he Jomt Dlrector ‘Department oi U1ban Development 8b Admm1strat10n Bllaspur IWRI’I‘ PETITION UNDER ARTICIE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shn Anand Kumar Tuvan, Advocate for the petmoner Ms Smita Ghal, Panel Lawyer for the mspondents. _ .o R D E R (Passed on this 8Tb Day of April, 2009) The petitioner, by _This petition imphgns the order dated 13.2.2009 (Annexure P] 4), whereby fhe petitioner While Working as Incharge Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Pancha‘yat Lakhanpur, Distn'ct Surguja was placed under suspension on the ‘ ground that he‘ had conunitted certain irregularities in purchase of sports and electncal 1tems whlle he was posted m Nagar Panchayat V1shrampur Learned counsel appeanng for the pennoner subunts that the provisions of Rule 36' of the Chhattisgarh Munlc1pa1 Semce (Executive) Rules, 1973‘ have not been complied with before passmg of the 1mpugned order The petltloner seeks mterterence ' of thls CouH on the ground that the pehtloner 1s posted at some p cother ,place, far away tromethe place where alleged nTegulanttes i, i’n’l s k _ _,. t frix have been committed and as such 6 impugned order is illegal éhd invalid. The peh'tioner is not in position to interfere in the disciplinaxy proceedings. He further submits that there must be satisfaction of the authority concerned andthat should be explained in the order itself that asto why it is necessaxy or ‘ desirable to place the petitioner unden suspension. J kule 36 of the Chhattisgarh Municipall Service (Executive) Rules, 11973 is similar to Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classincation, Control 8a Appeal) Rules, 1966, Where it is provides that a government servant may be placed under suspension Where a disciplinaiy proceeding against him is 9 contemplated or is pending. Admittedly, the charges of irregulalities have been issued to the petitioner and the disciplinary proceeding is in progress. At this , stage it is not necessaiy to take any decision on merits. The ‘ contention of learned counsel that the reasons have to be stated i in the order showing the Satisfaction of the ofEicer is not tenable, V as men: contemplation or pendency of enquiry into the charges of irregularity is sutiicient to place an employee under suspension, V during the pendency ofthe disciplinary proceedings. it 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 amounting to any reduction of rank or 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 ”innuence in the proceedings of departmental enquiry and likely tampering with on records. t ~ l ‘ l 6. I The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.L Shah Vs. Union of India and anotherl, held that “an ordér of suspension is not an ordsr imposing punishment on a person found to be guiity'. It is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth (iisposal of the proceedings: initiated against him.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of india and others vs. E. G. NambudirF observed. that “if the statutory rules require communication of reasons, the same must be communicated but in the absence of any such provision absence of communicau’on of reasons do not anect the validity of the order.” At this stage it is' not necessary to go into the chalges levelled against the petitioner because it may‘prejudice the case of the panties, wherein the respondents have initiated deparunental enquiry. 9. In View of the foregoing, the suspension order is valid and Wiit petition is dismissed accordingly. J ' . Sd/ 3 Judge ‘ 1 1989(1) scc 546 2 (1991)3 scc 38