A^f\ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRiT PETITiON (S) N0. 3081 of 2007 B.R. Mandavi, S/o Shri Jhumuk La! mandavi, Aged about 40 years, R/o Ashish Naye, Bhilai Street No. 10, West Qtr. No. 06/10, Bhiiai, District Durg, C.G. Respondents Versus 1. State of Chhattisgam, Through the Secretary, Department of VVomen anti Chiid Development, Mantra!aya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ralpur (C.G.) 2. The Director, Department of Women and Child Deveiopment, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Collector, District DUK (C.G.) 4. District C'niid and Women Deveiopment Officer, Durg, C.G. WRIT PETITiON UNDERARTICLE 228 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF Single Bench :- Hon'ble Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present:- Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocafe for the Petitioner. ORDER (Passed on this 11tn day of May,2007; 1. The petitioner was working as Project Officer, tntegrated Chiid Development Project, Dhamdha, District Durg. During his posting at Dhamdha, some compiaints with regard to delay payment to the staff and embezziement of government money were made. The respondent No. 3 i.e. Coliector, Durg in contemplation of the departmental enquiry, p!aced the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 18tn October, 2006 (Annexure P/2). 2. It appears that the deparSmental enquiry as contemptated under the provisions of Section 9(1 )(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Controi and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter 5. referred to as 'the Ruies, 1966') couid not be initiated within 45 days. The said suspension order was revoked vide order dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner was again placed under suspension vide order dated 17 April, 2007 (Annexure P/1) on the same ailegations as well as other additional aliegations. The petitioner chaiienges the legality and validity of the suspension order dated 17 April, 2007 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that the petitioner could not have been suspended for the same grounds, as eariier the suspension order was revoked. Secondiy, the petitioner has been transferred to other place. Thus, the petitioner would not cause any hindrance or influence in the departmentai proceedings. There is no grievance of the petitioner that the officer, passing the impugned suspension order, Is not a competent authority. Admittedly, the departmental proceedings against the petitioner is contempiated, as required under section 9(1)(a) of the Rules, 1966. !t is weli settled principle of law that the suspension is temporary and it does not invoive punishment with civil consequences. Suspension means a temporary deprivation of the functions, not amountlng to any reduction of his rank or his status. The employee under suspension continues to be a Government Servant, but he is not permitted to work keeping in view pendency of departmentai enquiry to avoid undue influence in the proceedings of the departmentai enquiry and likely tampering wit'n on records. At this stage is it not necessary to go into the charges leveied against the petitioner because it may prejudice the case of 3 the parties in the pending departmental enquiry (See. Smt. PhHomma Ekka Vs State of C.G. & Others1) 6. Be that as it may, since the suspension does not tantamount to punishment, the petitioner is entitied to subsistence allowance. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner has not been paid any amount from 15.12.2006 to 1.5.2007. The respondents-authorities cannot deprive the petitioner from payment of his salary from 15.12.2006 till the day the suspension order of the petitioner was passed on 1 7.4.2007. The petitioner was placed again under suspension and thereafter, he is entitled to subsistence allowance. The respondents- authorities are accordingly directed to ensure that legaily permissibie salary for the above stated period and subsistence allowance be granted to the petitioner, expeditiousiy. 7. ! do not propose to examine the allegations made in the suspension order as the enquiry is aiready pending consideration. This order wi!l not come in the way of enquiry, pending against the petitioner on merit. The enquiry authority may proceed with the enquiry uninfluenced by this order. 8. For the reasons steted hereinabove, the writ petition to the extent of quashing of the suspension order dated 17th April, 2007 (Annexure P/1) is dismissed summarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge y- 1. 2006 (2) C.G.L.J. 64