-^ h,i:. Petitioner HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH: BjLASPUR ^ ' ^ ! • " • . • ! ] Writ Petition (sl No. 57 of 2007 1 Manharan Lai Dhjver, S/o. Shri 1 Kartik Ram Dhiver aged about32 years, R/o. Viilage Tarenga, Tahsioi Bhatapara, Dist. Rajpur, CG. Respondents VeitsQs 1) I State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Panchayat and Rura! i Deveiopment, D.K.S. Bhawan, ! Raipur,CG. 2) Joint Director, Panchayat and . Social Welfarei Raipur, CG. 3) Chief Executive Officer, Bhatapara, Djst.Rsipur, CG. 4) Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Tarenga, Tahsi! Bhatapara, Dist. Raipur.CG. i 5) The Coilector, Raipur. 6) Parmanand Kashyap, Sahayak, Gram Panchayat Adhjkari, Tarenga, Tahsii Bhatapara, Dist. Raipur,CG. (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Satish K. Agriihotri Present: Shri Parag Kotecha.counselforth®petitloner. Ku. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1 to 5/State. None for responcient No.S. ORAI-ORDER (Passed on 2nd IViay, 2007) Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner; subftits that the suspension order was passedon 6-9-2006 (Annexure P/2) under the provisions of Ruie 9 (1) of Chhattisgarh Civi{ Services passifjcation, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 (for short, "the Rutes 1SS6) which - -z - provides for suspension, incase of contemplationof, or pending enquiry or where in respect of a criminai case, pending. ^n investigation.enquiry ortriaj is 2) In the present case, after suspension order, rio show cause notice has been issued till date and there is no enquiry, snvestigation, trial in criminai case is pending against the employee. Under sub-ruie (2-a) of Rule 9 of the Rules 1966, it is further prescribed that a copy of the articies of charges, the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a iist of documentsand witnesses by which each articie of charge is proposed to be sustained, is nbt issued within a period of45 days, the order of suspension has to be revoked. Proviso to sub-ruie (2-a) of Rule 9 of the Ruies 1966, provides for 90 days, in case where disciplinary authority is the State Government. | 3) According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, no show cause notice or articles of charges has been issued lili date. More than 90 days, have eiapsed, therefore, it can be heid that there is no contempiation of any disciplinary proceeding against the petstioner. in absence of contempiation of disdpiinary proceeding or pendency of disciplinary proceeding, an employee may not be piaced under suspension order. 4) In view of the foregoing provisions of law and applyjng to the facts ofthe present case, the impugnedorders dated 6-9-2006 (AnnexureP/2) and 12-9-2006 (Annexure P/3) cannot sustain. Th6 contention of the petitioner deserves acceptence. i.-'3-1 5) Accordingly, the petition is |allowed and the tmpugned orders 1'^ ••;:;:-.';'1.:.'::;^ ••1:.; •:'•'. ••t..;-:.'^;.-'-:L-,:;,':.^ dated 6-9-2006 ^nnexure P/2) and 12-9-2006 (Annexure P/3) are quashed. However, the respondents are granted liberty to file a writ petition for modification or review of jthe order jn the event it is found that the factsstatedabove are contrary tp law or otherwise. Certified copyas per rules. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge