HIGH COURT/OF JUDIGATURE GHHATTISGARH; BILASPUR Single Bench: 'Hon'ble Sliri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. (S) No. 3871 of 2008 Petitioner Shivsagar Rao, S/o Late Shri Nilkanth Rao, aged about 57 years, R/o Chourasiya Coldny, Math Pviraina, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhatdsgarh, Through : The Secretary, Departnient of Health & Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Under Secretary, Department of Health 85 Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director, Health & Family Welfare Department, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. 3. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Advocate for the petidoner. Smt. Smitha Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. '^-^V'^^r--^^ ORAL ORDER ( Passed on this 21st day ofJuly, 2008) 1. With the consent of the appearing parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk on 7.3.1970 and subsequently he was promoted on the post of Accountant. On 1.11.2003, one Mansha Ram lodged a report in the police station that the pedtioner had cheated him, as the petitioner had taken a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant on the assurance that he would provide him employinent. The police filed challan in the competent Court of jurisdiction for the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was taken into custody on 25.3.2004. As the 'i ;i?i%^^^;^??i^l^^8;:^Bf:^^S^?^3^ /^S;^^i^^'S^<:: ^@^':^^;^^$^;i^^;^^;; ^llF^N-S^^^ S-i-iB petitioner-was arrested in Crime No. 526/2003, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 26.5.2004 (Annexure P/l). • 3. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.2.2008 (Annexure P/2), passed by the Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarb., the suspension of the petitioner was revoked on the recoramendation of the Committee. In the process of revocation of suspension, the concerned authority considered the directions contained in Clause-3 of the Memo No. F 3-2/2006/1-3 dated 31.7.2006 (Annexure P/5) and Clause-7 of the memo dated 27.9.1978 (Annexure P/2), and the fact that the petitioner was under suspension for about 31/a years. This order dated 20.2.2008 (Annexure P/2) has been cancelled by the State Government vide impugned order dated 30.6.2008 (Annexure P/7), in view of the directions contained in the circular No. C-6- 10/99/3/1, dated 30th September, 1999 (Annexure P/8), issued by the General Administration Department. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.6.2008 (Annexure P/7), the petidoner has filed this petition. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the pe.titioner submits that the case of the petitioner was considered by a duly constituted cornrnittee. The Committee has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was under-suspension for about 3 Vz years, the State Govemment was required to pay 75% of the salary, as subsistence allowance to the petitioner. Thus, the Committee in its meedng dated 2.1.2008 had resolved to revoke the suspension of the petidoner in the interest of the State Government. The Committee was/constituted in view of the direction given in the cireular dated ^it;ag||ip«*"^" 27.9.1978 (Annexure P/2) and after considering all the aspects of the niatters in the light of the circulars, which have been adapted by the State of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 31.10.2002 (Annexure P/4), it was recommended. to revoke the suspension of the petitioner. The General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh has issued a circular^ dated 31.7.2006 (Annexure P/5) to follow the earlier circulars and the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No. 2918/2006 for considering the cases of employees for revocation of suspension. In view of the revocation of suspension order dated 20.2.2008 passed by the Director, the petitioner performed his duties with honesty and sincerity up to 30.6.2008. The respondent No.2, while issuing the impugned order dated 30.6.2008 (Annexure P/7) has completely overlooked the directions issued in the circular dated 31.10.2002 and the directions contained in the circular dated 31.7.2006. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. The provisions of Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 provides for suspension of an employee. Proviso to sub-rule (5) (d) of Rule 9 provides that an order of suspension shall not be revoked except by an order of the Gayemment made for the reasons to be recorded. 7. Clause 5 of the circular No. C. 6-10/99/3/1, Bhopal dated 30fh September, 1999 (Annexure P/8), issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, General Administration Departraent, reads as under:- ^ ^. te BISffil Ritffl? BJMIK ;-i'i;i:I^Kr: ^^N^l^( ^y^^^; i il'tJ'!I;{|y%;IS!'?E^;^t':;i@I^E::il:t3^ :^?KS siSJlji%JK)^;^^?tB;!§KtI!'ilS ^?lltB8®Bi!^fl^JSR^^®BilltlSlH8111 U^^IN^^:t^N^ ^IIBiN^Ji8KBIjjy>51;tjl:IIJ!i'lil^fBSllJfiBlilSl2®l^ J|ij'ti;|||cU^||qj|i^is^|J.j.^^^|aiil|'aSilJIIIWIaaSll^ J||||| |^||^|Jli<3^J|a|||j|>||J|^||^|j|(^ SI'ySiyBIiB!ISSKS &?^?SlffK' IIBIJBI$llfi^ ;^MIii^fs"J9iK;BK;i:tti''B^^^hSiSilSiyKyBK ^|||;;|^§igRig|||^|^J|e|H^i^||gjg|JsgsB|ig§^^ ly;lll!(l!jffil{'8j$J%%:I^ -;JKIB®H81M%^SS8^W ^Jj^^||^v!'^|j^fJ^i;G^|aIiN181till§^jifti§'^E^^ !t-ll:- ^l'giiil^^^.^atujiaAQ^.^^^II^Bi^^ •s|^o^j^,'j4oyj:T,'^3;Hauia.i^Q^ j;|B^^f:|g^^^^^|ln^^.,:fJ.(uc(i8;a^)^ i;at[^^^iE[;J;^)^:'.ejri3tag::|^:'^^ r^ i'KS ^ 'l|1^?fE'?'tt^^'^^T04^^l ^ ^:ls^;.."i^;;s^'JRtiMIcT;IISSa9SM8111il8^^SKSitslUJBS^ •':; '^?a^S^?3t^'^y^iiliTO.j'psssBa^l^3(:t;f'^o,,^ ', ''aaifeldiira; ^uauiujaAoSj ::a^ ^stRB^^ Suipiisd • si;;, sis'eo : -fBUTUiuo i';,S:E3l^^^3.^^TCT^:}^-JB3I3,4r^ '^'siinf'^gi'ga^^^japro^BS^tuiuCT ;;«^l^^6^!i)i^.,^'^^, :.^^^^iya^d||^^i&||te^^gi^;^,s^ ,;, g&,fetti3 |^M',%fe:^^J^^1,^^^ll.|tjl^ ; . . • ^ii^ ^^,.)|g|l£,lM^ —,\,' : -; l'[|a^K: to^'.Mte:!^^1;^^ : : ;K^^i^|^|ii4^^.i-^^^WI(^ ll||:^:'il^|'iMff!;fflN!|ti^'^:^^ .aj:^::'ffl^^|i^?'^gt^|^||% |i^3WillN^.'JS^iliN.'iNS BiS^ff,l^^';:^^'^^ J^|S^^.°Maa^|i|%|ii|lS&'»^iafii^^<^^|3^ ^^^stSNi ssisS&ss&^ l:!!:i ii: ta 10. In viewpfthe above, I ani ofthe considered opinion that the impugned order dated 30th June, 2QQ8 (Annexure P/7) passed by fhe Sfate Gdvemment, canceling the' revocation order dated 2Q.2.2008 (AnnexureP/6) passedbytheDirector, Healttt Services, ^r ' '' •. '• .:•-.':•'.'•.. ' Chhatfisgarh, needs no irtterference, rather it is legal and prQper. II. In the result, this petition has no nierit, which deserves to be and is dismissed. ,SdA- SatishK.Agniliotri _Judge