» ^^-^7 IN TH6 HON'BLE HIGH CQURT OF OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ..T..^.'....r......l2006 PET1TIONER Hari Singh Rajput ^ S/o Shri Dwarika Singh Rajpoot Aged about 45 yrs. Posted as Assistant Soil Survey Officer cum Sub Divisional Officer, Agriculture Department, Bilaspur, resident at Chandra Vihar Colony, ManglaRoad, Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : / 1 ...''^ ^.^/ 0<" ^/y ^.r' ^< ...'•^-•t'..•••'' \^^\^ ^^ ^^-•' ^ \^ ^.^^.^ ^ (^ J ^ . ^,^^- ^. ^^ .?•• ^- 0^~ State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Its Secretary, Department ofAgriculture, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) Avar Sachiva, Department ofAgriculture, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) Director, Department of Agriculture, Labhandi Form, Raipur(C.G.) Joint Director, Dep.artment ofAgriculture, Division, Bilaspur(C.G.) Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture, DistrictBilaspur(C.G.) WRl^PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTLOK OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT/ WRITS IN THE NATURI^OF MANDAMUS/AND/OR CERTIORARI/AND/ORPROHIBITION/AND/OR APPROPRIATE DLRECTIQN/D1RECTIONS. ORDERS/ ORDERS r-n HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BIL4SPUR S.B, Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Petitioner W. P. fslNo. 4917 of 2006 Hari Singh Rajput versus , ..-A- Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others Present: Shri Suresh Pwidey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish ©upta, t)y. Sovt. Advocate for the respondents/State. ORDER (Passed on 8th September, 2006) 1. Learned counsel oppearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Assistant Soil Survey Officer-cum- Sub Divisioinai Officer, Agriculture bevelopment, Bilaspur. 2. At the releyant time, by order dated 11.8.2006, serviceof the petitioner was suspended on the ground of serious irregularities alleged against him, which was under contemplation for holding the departmentai enquiry against the petitioner. 3. Be that as it may, haying regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, at this sta9e when the suspension order was passed, contemplating departmental enquiry against him, it is not necessary to 90 into the allegations and counter CIVII allegations made by the parties ond further, it is not necessary to go into the legality/vahdity of the impugned order, at this stage. 4. It is well settled prinGiple of law that the suspension is temporary ond it does not involve punishment with consequences. Suspension means a temporary deprivation of the functions not amounting to dny reduction of his rank or his status. The empioyee under suspension continues to be a fiovernment Servant, he is not permitted to use undue influence in the proceedings of departmental enquiry and likely tampering with on records. At this stage, it is not necessary to go into 1+ie charges levelled against .the petitioner because it moy prejudice the case of the parties in the proposed departmenta! enquiry. 5. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Sablu