siNCir "n d^ l-^- BEFQRE THEJ-UGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. (S) No. /2010 PETITIONER i0 :^ -^..-" o ' ..•J'l ••' .^ <^y'' <^<K" RESPONDENTS ;' \* ^ ^%I^ ^ /"'^- Chandresh Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Sivaram Sahu, aged about 47 years, R/o 5 Building Durg, working in the post of Tahsildar- Mahasamund (Under Suspension), Distt. MaHasamund (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through-lts Secretary Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Under Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ^ WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (^ HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION fS) No. 1182 of2010 Chandresh Kumar Sahu. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of ChhaUisgarh & another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SBiHoii^l^ShnSatish K, Agnihotri,J. Present: Shri T.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Dy. A.G. for the State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 09th day of April, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 16.02.2010 (Annexure P/4) whereby the State Govemment has placed the petitioner under suspension on account of filing challan m crime No. 11/2007 registered under section 7, 13(l)(d) and 13(2) ofthe Prevention ofComiption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') in the Court of Special & 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg. 2. The indisputable facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was workmg as Tahsildar, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund. The Anti Cormption Bureau Police, Raipur, registered a criminal case against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, 1988, on 30.07.2007. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 03.08.2007 (Annexure P/l). Thereafter, on a representatipn being made by the petitioner on 28.11.2007 (Annexure P/2), the order of suspension was revoked on 10.09.2008 (Annexure P/3) as there was a delay in investigation and filing of challan. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted at Mahasamund. On completion of the investigation, challan was filed in the Court of Special & 1 Additional •^' Sessions Judge, Durg. The petitioner was thereafter again placed under suspension vide order dated 16.02.2010 (Annexure P/4). Thus, this petition. Shri Tiwari, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not be suspended on the same grounds once suspension of the petitioner has been revoked. There is no provision for re-suspension under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. Shri Tiwari relies on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jagbalpur in Aziz Qweshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh & another . Heard leamed counsel, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Rule 9 ofthe Rules, 1966 reads as under: "9(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Govemor by general or special order, may place a Govemment servant under suspension— (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) where a case against hun in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial; Provided that a Govemment servant shall invariably be placed under suspension when a challan for a criminal ofEence involvmg corruption or other moral turpitude is filed against him." There is no embargo on placing the employee under suspension second time when the suspension order passed earlier has been revoked on one or the other ground. Rule 9 ofthe Rules, 1966. Sub Rule 1 ofRule 9 ofthe Rules, 1966 provides for placing an employee under suspension where a case against him in respect of any criminal ofEence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. In the case on hand, the criminal case was registered against the petitioner and the same is pending trial, which is of serious nature. -!._mstojupLSR453 \ ^by '^-- 7. Reliance of the leamed counsel for the petitioner on a decision rendered by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Aziz Qureshi (supra), is misplaced as the invocation of suspension on the ground of inordinate long delay cannot be put in a sta-aitjacket. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case. In the case on hand, the case for having committed offences uuder the provisions ofthe Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner and the petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter, having considered the request of the petitioner, the order of suspension was revoked. However, thereafter, challan was filed before the court o'f Special & 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, the petitioner was again placed under suspension vide the impugned order dated 15.02.2010 (Annexure P/4), the same cannot be held as unsustainable or illegal. 8. It is well settled principle of law that the suspension is temporary and it does not involve punishment with civil consequences. Suspension means temporary deprivation ofthe fimctions not amounting to any reduction ofhis rank or status. The employee under suspension CQntinues to be a Govemment Servant, he is not permitted to work keepmg in view pendency of departmental enquiry to avoid undue influence in the proceedings of departmental enquiry and likely tampering with the records. 9. The Supreme Court, in P.L.Shah v. Union of India , has considered the nature ofsuspension and heldas under: "6. An order of svspension 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 ofthe proceedings initiated against him. (1989) 1 SCC 546 B ; % '^y"'l l Y:^ ^)') 10. Thus, there is no reason to quash the impugned suspension order dated 16.02.2010 (Aimexure P/4). The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. 11. However, havmg regard to the fact that there should not be undue delay in completion of any enquiry or trial as the employee has to survive on subsistence allowance, and further, if there is an inordinate delay in disposal of the pending enquiry or trial, the suspension may become a punishment. The respondent authorities are directed to take necessary steps for conclusion of fhe trial to avoid inordinate delay as the petitioner is placed under suspension. 12. There shall be no order asto costs. _- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit