^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Wnt PetitiQn Np. 1617 of 2005 Petitioner Smt. Meeua Mandal, wife of Ashok Kumar Maiidal, aged about .45 years, Assistao.t Grade-II, Office of Comiiiissioner Laad Record, Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1, State of Chliattisgarh, /!hrougli - Collector, Bilaspur, 2, Comrnissioner Land Record, Raipur (C.G,) 3. Deput5r Com.mis.sioB.er, Laad Record, Raipur (C.G.) WR1T PETITION UNDER AR'HCLE 226/227 OF THE ^../.,>jri;jtUT!ON.OFiNDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Ashok Dube}T, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Sunita Jaia, Paiiel Lawyer for titie respondents. 2. O R DE R (Passed on this 8th Day ofApril, 2009) The petitioner, by th.is petition iaipugiis fhe order dated 1.4.2005 (Annexure P/4), whereby the petitioiiier while worlding as Assisfant Grade-II ia tlie office of the Coinmissioner, Laad Records, Raipur was placed under suspension. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued on 11,5,2005 (Annexure R/l) and flie enquiry is peudiag consideration. In view of the lact fhat fhe charge sheet was issued withia tiaie, fhe suspension caanot be quashed. Even ofhenvise, tiie grounds raised by flie petitioner that there was no coiiiplaiat against the petitioner or fhe suspension order was prejudicial, are not sustaiaable ia law as the law 011 suspension is vety clear. Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh CivU Services (Classtfication, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 provides that a goveniment sexvaiit may be placed under suspension where a disciplinaiy proceediag ^ 6. agaiast hioi is contemplated or is pendiag. In the present case fhe suspension order was issiied on 1.4.2005 and soon fhereafter the charge sheet was issued ou 11.5.2005. At present fhe departoiental enquiry is pendiag. It is well settled principle of law tiia.t tJie suspension is texnporary aad it does not iavolve punishment wifh civil consequences. Suspension means a teniporary deprivation of fhe functions not amountm.g to any reduction of raiik or status. The einployee under suspensiou coutiniies to be a GoveiTiiuent Servaat, he is not permitted to work keepiag iii view pendency of depaitmental enquiry to avoid undue influence in. fiie proceediags of departiiiental enquny and likely tmiipering witii on records. At fhis stage it is not necessary to go iato tlie charges levelled agahist fhe petitioner because it inay prejudice fhe case of ffae parties whereia depailnieutal enquiry has ah'eady been initiated. In view of fhe tbregoing, the suspension order caanot be faulted witii. The writ petitiou is disniissed accorduigly. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakiir