Writ Petition (S) No. 1628 of 2008 Farid Qureshi, S/o. Lt. Shri W.A‘ Qureshi, aged abou 46 years, occupation Sub Engineer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mungeli, Distt. Biiaspur (CG). Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Urn Administration and Development, Mantralay, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Commissioner, Department of Urban Administration and Deveiopment, Directorate, Raipur(CG). 3) Additiona Director, epartment of Urban Administration and Development, Diviion, Bilaspur (CG), 4) Chief unicipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Mungell Dist. Bilaspur (G). (Writ Petitio under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) n SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Ms. Dipali Pandey, counsel forthe petition. er Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate Generl a forthe State. Preent: s ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25‘" day of April, 2008) The petitioner working as Sub-Eineer in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mungeli,; ng Dist. Bilaspur, is placed under suspension by order dated 4-3—2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the disciplinary authority. The impugned suspension order was passed on the ground of certain irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner. 2) The circular dated 31—7—2006 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, published in Chhattisgarh Karmachari Margdarshak in December, 2006, provides for recording of reasons in the suspension order. On perusal of the suspension order dated 4—3-2008 (Annexure P/1), clear reasons have been assigned for placing the employee under suspension i.e., serious allegations of irregularities against the petitioner. ln view of that, the petitioner was placed under suspensron. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR ’ Petitioners t Respondents ba a l D s M C / ‘ §Q 3) The contention of learned counsel appearing ’for the petitioner is that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing before suspension order is passed, secondly, the order is vague as it does not indicate any reasons. Thus, the impugned suspension order is arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. 4) Section 9 (1) (a) of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) mRules, 1966 (for short, “the 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 Governor by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension- (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial: (Provided that a Government servant shall invariably be placed under suspension when a challan for a criminal offence involving corruption; or other moral turpitude is filed against him:] .- Provided further that where the order of suspension is made by ’ an authority lower 4than the appointing authority, suchauthority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the "‘\ circumstances in which the order was made.” 5) In the present case, circular dated 31—7-2006 issued by the Government of CG, cannot over ride the statutory provisions of the Rules, 1966. The requirement of the a provisions of Section 9 (1) (a) of the Rules 1966 has been complied with before passing of the suspension order. Even otherwise, the reasons required have been assigned in the order i.e., grave irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner and a charge sheet dated 11-4-2008 (Annexure P/6) has been issued against the petitioner within prescribed time under the provisions of sub—section 5 of Section 9 of the Rules, 1966. 6) lt is well settled principles of law that suspension of an employee is temporary and it does not involve punishment with evil 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 a permitted to work keeping in view pendency of departmental enquiry to avoid undue influence in the proceedings of departmental enquiry and likely tempering With onM g g records. It is not required to give show cause notice or afford an opportunity of hearing before suspension order is passed as suspension is not punitive. 7) In view of foregoing, the petition is devoid of‘ merit. The petition is accordingly i\ dismissed. No order as to costs. .r# a f . Sd/- Satlsh K. Agnihetri Judge