r\V HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2613 of 2009 Petitioner G. R. Thakur, S/o Late Shri Ghaa Singh Thakur, aged about 50 years/ Office of Chief Executive Officer, Jaapad Paiichayat Chhiu'a, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Departoient of Schedule Caste aad Scheduled Tribe Welfare Departaient, D,K.S,Bhavao., Manti'alaya, Raipiir (C.G.) Distdct CoUector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Sunil Otevani, Advocate for flie petitioner, Shri Yashwaat Siagh Thakur, Deputy Adyocate General for fhe respondents. O R DE R foral) (Passed on this 24th day ofJune, 2009) Heard. 1. The petitioiier, by this writ petitiou, challenges thLe legality and vaUdity of the order dated 31.3.2009 (Annexure P/l), whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension on account of sonie nregiiladties ia discharge of his official duties, whUe he was posted as Inchai'ge Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Paachayat, Bhan.upratappur, Distorict Kaiiker. 2. Leanied couusel appearmg for tlie petitioner subraits that tih.ere was no necessity to place ttie petitioner under suspension. The charges agaiast the petitiouer are ia regard to the official fanction discharged by him while he was posted at Bhaiiupratappur, distdct Kaaker, whereas at present fhe petitioner is workiag at Chhura, distiict Raipur. Thus, fhere was no adniin.istoative exigency to place tiie petitioner under suspension duiiag enqiiiry. 3. Leaaied counsel appearing for fhe rcspondents, subniits thiat it is not a case where the petitioner was placed under suspension wifhout affordiiig aii opportunity ofheailag. It is evident froin fhe mipugned order dated 31.3.2009 (Annexui'e P/1) fhat tiie charge sheet was issued to fhe petitioner iii accordaiice with fhe provisions Chhattisgai'h Civil Services (Classtfication, Coutorol aiid Appeal) Riiles, 1966. The petitioner submitted his reply on 29.12.2007, wliich was considered by the concenied authonty of the department aiid thereafter it was decided to place the petitioner under suspension duriiig depaitmental enquiry. 4. It is weU setUed priiiciple oflaw fhat fhe suspension is iciiiporory aad it does not iavolve punishment wifh civil consequences, Suspension raeaiis a teiiiporary deprivation of fhe fuuctions uot aaiountmg to aay reduction of raak or status. The employee under suspension continues to be a Goveraiae.nt Sen?aat, he is not permitted to work keepiag ia view pendency of criminal trial or departmental enquiry to avoid undue iafluence m fhe proceediags and Ukely taoipering wiih on reqords. 5. The HonT^le Supreme Court iu P.L.Shah Vs. Union of India and another1, held th.at "aa order of suspension is not ao. order imposiag punishnient on a person found to be guUty» It is an order made agaiast hioi before he is found guilty to ensure sinootli disposal oftiie proceediags iaitiated agaiast hnn.?? 1 1989(1) SCC 546 6. -^" Thabir WNNN^liA? The Hon'ble Supreme Court ia Uaiiosa of India and others vs, B. G. Nambudiri2 obser^ed fhat "if the statutoiy rules require coBimunication of reasons, flie saxae niust be conim.unicated but ia fhe absence of any such provision absence of coBinxunication ofreasons do not affect the vaMdity oftlie order." In view of fhe foregouig, there is no iiierit ia fhis writ petition. The writ petition is disiuissed, aocordingly. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (1991)3 SCC 38