Q@ HIGH COURT‘DF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PET!TION (S) NO. 949 OF 2009 PETITIQNER Santosh Kumar Sahu. aged about 38 years, s/o Shri Digan Lai Sahu, R/o Barbasput, Post Office Koma‘ Via Khallari, Block Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. District Education Officer. Mahasamund. District Mahasamund (CG). 3. Biock Education Officer. Pithora. Mahasamund (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’hle Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Prateek Sharma on Ms. Sunita Jain, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. GRA ORDER (Passed on this 5 day of March, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. the matter is heard onally. 2) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 19-9-2008 (Annexure—P/i) wherein the criminal case has been registered against the petitioner under theyovisionsof Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act, 1Q88’) and the petitioner was arrested. Consequently, the petitioner was suspended. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the suspension order was passed under Rule 9 (1) (a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short “the Rates, 19%”). which is not sustainable. 4) 0n perusal of the suspension order, it appears that mentioning of Rule 9 (1) (a) of the Rules, 1966 in the suspension order is by mistake. In fact the suspension order has been passed under the provisions of Rule 9 (1) (b) of the Rules, 1966. [9 5) it is well settled law that mere reference ef wrong provisions in the order, the same does not vitiate the said order. Once the case has been registered and investigation starts, ruie 9 (1) (b) of the Ruies, 1966 appiies. Rule 9 (1) (b) of the Rules, 1966 provides that where a case against the employee in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial, the employee may be placed under suspension. v 6) The Supreme Court in P.l.. Shah vs. Union of India and another‘, has considered the nature of suspension and held as under : “6. An order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guilty. It is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings lnltlated against him. Such proceedings should be completed expeditiously in the public interest and also in the interest of the Government servant concerned. . . 7) lt is not in dispute that criminal case was registered against the petitioner and the petitioner was detained in judicial custody during pendency of trial. Thus, in view of the provision of Rule 9 (1) (b) of the Rutes, 1966 it was obligatory upon the concerned State Authorities to place the petitioner under suspension during trial. ‘lt is well settled that the suspension is temporary and it does not involve punishment with civil consequences. Suspension means a temporary deprivation of the functions not amounting to any reduction of his rank or his status. The employee under suspension continues to be a Government servant. He is not permitted to work keeping in view pendency of criminal trial to avoid undue influence in the proceedings of the criminat trial Since the order impugned is not punitive in nature it is not necessary to interfere at this stage lt is not a case where tKe trial is concluded and the petitioner is acquitted 8) in view of the foregoing, there is no intirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 9) Consequently, l.A.No.1 stands disposed of Gowri ‘ AIR 1989 sc 985