^TEET'«|«lrt«,S^I^PIS, fq«l'<iy>< ^^ qror ^^.^^..^....<;.^....... ^ 200% \'<-\' sn^sT tracp(4ci(jci^) 3TI^91tRTR-licti asiTsn^sTaiWR ?^TW?^?T3II^ST PETITIONER B.P. BHlAWAR SHRI R.I|>. ENGINEt UNIVER$ (CG), R/0 V|l DEEND4YAL DISTRICt vk RESPONDENTS 1. 2. PANDIT fl?AVISFIANKAR SHUKLA UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR, fHROUGH-ITS REGISTRAR, AMANAKA, G.E: ROAp, RAIPUR (CG) SHRI CHANCEU UNIVERS]} (CG) Writ Petition under Articlel S.B ilon'ble Shri^hirendra BOishra, J. 11.11.2008 Shri RK Kesharwani, coun Shri Pramod Kumar Ve; Verma, Advocate appears on cav Heard on admission. By this petition, the pe| Annexure P/l dated 13th Octcjber University has suspended the Engineer pending enquiry. Learned counsel for the suspension is malafide as the 'respondent No.2. He further iii«[n<Tliiii»l'^'ls'<l<(ui'<-ci'< ^3lf^tT3TI^?T AGED 45 YEARS, S/0 LATE . BHAWAR, WORKING AS - ASSISTANT ;R, AT-PANDIT RAVISHANKAR SHUKLA IITY, AMANAKA, G.E. ROAD, RAIPUR NAYAKA VIHAR CAMPUS, NEAR UPADHYAY NAGAR, RAIPUR ' - RAIPUR (CG) iFSUS .AXMAN CHATURVEDI, VICE- 'LOR, PANDIT RAVISHANKAR SHUKLA rry, AMANAKA, G.E. ROAD, RAIPUR 226 of the Constitution of India sel for the petitioner. ma, Sr. Advocate with Shri Sumit ;at for respondent No. 1. ;[titioner has impugned the order of •, 2008, whereby the respondent- Ipetitioner froni the post of Assistant Ipetitioner submits that the order of s^me has been passed at the behest of su^mits that the petitioner, in discharge XI-HC-78 ~<ifc't 31ffiS^Hg;-78 s ';K. ./'/ 3wT -yioirt^, y-(n'(-i<i<»,Rrti'dy't *11+lril ai^T^ u^ /ud. gz e iy 3I1^9T q^cp (qcrfgcHg) ^200% an^^cpiR'iith ^anaTI^STiBWP g^TTSRTrf^aaiT^ST 7-. counfeel of his duties, objected to University by the technically inc|< has been entrusted to persons by the University. he has been put under argued that the petitioner belon^ circular of Annexure P/6, bef(|> against the petitioner; the res restraints. I have heard learned The petition is directed a^: enquiry. The charge sheet ha^ date. Suspension of employee/o| is prerogative of the eraployer this stage as merely placing an| constitute either dismissal or A larger Bench of the V.jB. Gidroniya Vs. The Stat^ reported in 1970(1) SCC 362, an employee pending departme^ under: ex^cution of construction work of the persons. However, the work ;, unqualified and inexperienced annoyed by the aforesaid objections, by the respondents. It is also ifes to Other Backward Class and as per >re initiating disciplinary proceedings sp()ndents ought to have observed soine incjompetent incoin^etent Beirlg suspefision "8. ............... The law\ reviewed in Balvantrajii Maharashtra. Therein th^ The general principle is employee pending an enq-i\ 4)|<lfri41-1 lllrtl'Tt I'sxSl •<(ul'wi'< ^sri^qan^sT for the petitioner on admission. i^ainst the order of suspension pending not been issued to the petitioner till ffficer pending enquiry by his employer [nd the saine can not be impugned at employee under suspension does not reitnoval from service. Ho|n'ble Supreme Court in the matter of o/ Madhya Pradesh and another, cjlealing wifh the issue of suspension of tit enquiry or proceedings observed as on the subject was exhaustively Ratilal Patel Vs. State of legal position was stated thus : ^hat an employer can suspend an \iry into his misconduct. : '• BB XI-HC-y8 ^v^ -«rai«^,to-^l'H'ifi, Rol'friy ^^J./..crs.?..^.?.:..f'..'L.6..Lf., *11*lc>l <SRW ———————•—'• 3IT^9T CRtp (ijc|ijc|cg) ^200 ^ sn^n'RiR-ii* asiT3n^STri)fi* ?7aT8R?rf^T3Tf^ST 3 The Hon'ble Supreme Coi-jrt City of Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nlpigpur and others, reported in 1981\ scope of interference in the cas^ disciplinary enquiiy, observed a^ in the matter of Corporation of the anri another Vs. Rantchandra (2) SCC 714, while dealing with the of suspension froin service pending a i under: "4..........In the aforesaid pending a disciplinary fall within the ambit of th^ ofreasoning, therefore, th^ o/ Section 59(3), as to the conclusion that the fully competent to suspen^ department enquiry and passed against the Corrunissioner does not cftse, extrad^ted spenji h^nce, resbondent suffi Further, in the matter of Parashad Dcis, reported in Court observed as under: susUension "3. An order of govemment servant pendf.ng neither one of dismissal within Article 311 of the clearly laid down by a in Mohammad Ghouse unfortunate that this decf noface ofthe leamed (1) ofArticle 311 will get who is a member of Civil India Service or a Civil S^i holds a civil post und^r 'dismissed' or 'removed' f^ the said clause have Juddes n{> 'pKifn'.Fli *ii*inl'*Fls'<l •<Iul<ci< ^S 3lf^»T3(1^9T cjsise, suspension from service enqff^iry has clearly been held to word 'control'. On a parity plan language of Clause (b) above, irresistibly leads Iftunidpal Commissioner was the respondent pending a h^nce, the order ofsuspension by the Municipal sufferfrom. any legal infirmity." ptate of Orrisa and others Vs. Shiva (2) SCC 65, the Hon'ble Supreme 1985 passed against a a disciplinary enquiry is nor of removal from service Qonstitution. This position was C^nstitution Bench of fhis Court fs. State of Andhra. It is fsion was not brought to the of the High Court. Clause ^ttracted only when a person ^ervice of the Union or an All 'rvice, of a State or one who the Union or a State is (om service. The provisions of application whatever to_^-, ^ fa "^ ~'% •? -ftte»>..-l 3 "si8»|jCf8 \, '%.J1/ vS-Ctei—tlWM'il,y>TEll'<1'*ll§, f6|o}|<My< rf-^. .w./..('.?.?../Yd.-...6.2:6- *ii*ie>i^*rrar ''"""••••••—••••••"—••••'•• ^200 ca 3IT^?T IR^ (l^<i^<re) "' 3II^?T<l:iTfe:Tra? cRnaff^nspTte <H ?WT<R^tT3II^?T 9 Oevemikent situation where a placed under suspension since such action does noi removal from service. T) manifestly in error in qua\ passed against tke resporS^ent violative ofclause (1) ofAr^cle servant has been merely jpending departmental enquiry constitute either dismissal or ^.e High court was, therefore, shing the order of suspension on the ground that it was 311 ofthe Constitution. Similariy, in the matterl reported in (1994) 4 SCC 46^ challenge, the Hon'ble Supreme) observed as under: "4. .............It would disciplinary proceedings af ts open to the appoii authority or authorized servant under suspensioni In view of the above settlefd that the charge-sheet is yet ascertained whether suspensio| instant petition simply againfsf 13.10.2008 is premature and thfc admission stage itself. Accordinj Consequently, the caveat ^ t|>ty[ri41-1 HIHriY^'fetQ^RiTgR ^sri^Tan^CT of State of M.P. Vs. L.P. Tiwari, :, wherein identical issue was under Court reaffirming the earlier dictums us be clear that where re pending or contemplated, it iting authority, disciplinary officer to keep govemment principle of law, considering the fact 'o be issued, wherefrom it could be a of the petitioner was malafide, the the order of suspension dated e same deserves to be dismissed at the ^, the petition is dismissed. ipplication stands disposed of. Judge