,^h, >^. ^l, stMsS' OBUtiiu ^ ^/ 13^;, IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR / WRITPETITIONNO. ^'11 "^ OF 2-00(o PETITIONER iK> \/?^^<. ^^^t^^--""~ ^^^y' .^'f^:^y <?^:':>s" ^ ^•'•' Versus Rakesh Kumar Thakur son of Late Indu Bhushan Thakur, Aged about 45 years, resident Of G 26, Civil Lines, Rajnandgaon (C.G) RESPONDENTS 1. Chhattisgarh Khadi tatha . Gram Udyog Board, Raipur Through the Managing Director, Jeevan Beema Marg, Pandri, Raipur(C.G) 2. Manager (Gramodyog) Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ":a HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BIXASPUR/ 'j^ Sin^e Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aguihofcri, J. W.P.No^SllT^ofaQ06 Petitioner : Rakesh Kiunar Thakur Versus Respondent : Chbattisgarh Khadi Tatfaa Gram Udyog Board & aaother Shri Saurabh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. OKDER 1 19th September, 3006) 1. The petitioner was working on fhe post of Incharge District Inspector, ZUa Panchayat Office, Rajnandgaon. On the allegations of having coininitted certain UTegularities, the petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 9 (1) ofthe Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short the Rules, 1966'), vide order dated 19/21.10.2005 (Anaexure P/3), passed by the Respondent No.1. By the inipugned order, the petitioner was directed to handower the charge of the post to fh.e Manager at Rajnaadgaon. 2. The petitioner has ffled this petition under Articte 226/227 ofthe Constitation of India, chaUenging validity of fhe impugned suspension order dated 19/21.10.2006. 3. Learaed counsel appearing for the petitioner uapugus the order of suspensiou on fhe ground that although there is a mention of certain irregularities in fhe iinpugned order but it. is not specified as to wbefher aiiy departanental enquuy is pendiiig or uader conteinplation. I^eamed counsel further subinits fhat when the ( —2-- c.^^ chai^e sheet was aot served to the petitioner even after lapse of45 days, fhe petitioner subniitted an application on 7.12.2005 (Annexiire P/4) seeking joining on fhe post Thereafter the charge sheet dated 7/14.12.2005 (Annexure P/6) was seryed on fhe petitioner on 20.12.2005, containing article ofcha%es, statenient of unputations of inisconduct, a Ust of docuuients and a Ust of witiiesses. The case of fhe petitioner is based solely on the groiind that the order of suspension should be quashed on the ground that fhe charge slieet could not serve upon fhe petitioner wifhin 45 days, as envisaged in Rule 9 ofthe Rules, 1966. 4. Leanied counsel furfher subinits fhat the order of suspension niay be treated as revoked when the charge sheet ete. was not served wittun a period of45 days. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner has been served wifh the charge sheet containing article of charges, statenient of imputations of uiisconduct, a list ofdocTiinents and a list ofwitaesses on 60th day. Pirst proviso to Rule 9 (2-a) provides for extension of period to fhe total period of 90 days for servuig fhe charge sheet wifh an order froua the State Govei-ninent. It is not the case of the petitioner fhat no order of the State Govemiaent was obtained before expiiy of 45 days from. fhe date of the order of siispension. 6. It is well settled principle of law fbat fhe suspension is teinporaiy and it does not involve punishinent with ciyil consequeaces. Suspension naeans a teinporaiy deprivation of the functions not amounting to any reduction of his rank or his statas. The eniployee under suspension continues to be a Govemiuent Servant, he is not pennitted to work keeping in view pendency of 7 ss departinental enquiry to avoid undue infliience iu the proceedings of departmentel enquiry and likely tam.pering wifh on records. 7. Having heaiTl leanied counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition and papers appendcd fhereto, it is evident that fhe chaiy sheet has atready been served on the petitioner. The suspension cannot bc quaslied on the ground ftiat fhe saine could not be served within 45 days when fhe extended period is 90 days, wifti prior order of tlie State Govemnient. Thus, it is not necessaiy to go into the vaUdity of fhe iinpugned suspension order. 8. The petition is accordingly disinissed. Thei-e shaU be no order as to costa. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur