Wlm @ @ l IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ ‘ WRIT PETITION (S) No S30 OF 2010 s'NGLE BENCH PETITIONER I Famndra Kumar Jalswal S/o Late ~Shri S.P. jaiswal, aged about; 46 1 years,’ R/o Village Sarsiva, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Dis;trict Raipur VERSUS through the Secretary Panchayat, DKS v/ Bhawan Raipur C.G. 2. The Zila Panchayat Dhamtari through the Chief Executive District RESI’OII’DENTS L/State of ;C.G. officer, Dhamtari, /Dhamtari C.G. 3. The Principal,Government Higher Secondary ' School District Dhamtari C.G. Magarlod, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IN‘DIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE ‘ NATURE i OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION] ORDER IN'THE LIKE NATURE ETC. MAY THIS PLEASE TO YOUR LORDSHIP, PETITIONER : Fanindra Kumar Jaiswal. § f RESPONDENTS : State of C.G. & Others. X WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 O ’ THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA l } I v Present: I 4a @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) ‘0. 590 of 2010 VERSUS SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish IIK Agnihotri, J. ‘4», Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate fpr the petitioner. Shri Y.S;Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER ‘(Passed on 08E day of February, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure P/l) passed by: the] respondent N0. 2 i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Dharntari, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade I, Vide order dated 27.7.1998 at Government Higher Secondary School, Magarload. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure P/1) the petitioner was placed under suspension: The petitioner ,impugns the \order dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure P/l) on the sole ground that the wrong provisions have been invoked for \ suspending the petitioner. Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for t the petitioner submits that the provisions of Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 are not applicable to service , conditions of Shiksha‘Karmis as there is a separate rule nainely hhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment & Conditions of I C " Services) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules, 2007’) framed inexercise of powers conferred under clause (b) 6f sub-section (1) of Section 53-and sub-section (1) of Section 70 read with sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the ChhattisgarhPanc'hayat Raj Aidhiniyam, 1993 (No.i1 of 1994), governing the service conditions %)f the Shiksha Karmis. Thus, the impugned order is bad in law, unjust: and deserves to be quashed. ’On perusal of the Rules, 2007, it isrfound that there is no provision for suspension. Rule 3 of the Rules, 12007, which is clear, explicit:and‘ unambiguous, provides that without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in the ‘Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, these Rules shall apply to every member of the service. 5. Rule 3 ofthe Rules, 2007 reads as under: i “3. Scope and application. — Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh- Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, these Rules ,shall apply to every member of the service.” V 6. Section 15 of the Rules, 2007 provides that nothing in these rules shall be construed to limit or abridge the powers of the Governor to deal With the case of any person to whom these rules apply in such manner as fmay appear to it to be just and equivalent. Provided that the case shall not be dealt in with in any mannerless favorable to him than that provided in these rules. The power of Governor isexercised in accordance with the Rules of Busihess as framed under Article 1‘66 (3) of the Constitution of India. _ \ There is no challenge in this petition with regard to the power of the . i I Chief‘Executive Officer, except that the provisiOns referred to in the t l _ g r impugned suspension order is not applicable to the service conditions of the Shiksha Karmis. The expression, ‘without prejudice to~the generality of the provisions contained . in the ‘Chhattisgorh Civil l' Services (General Conditions 4 of Service) Rules, 1961, does not cut down the generality of the provisions ofRules, 1961. Having considered all the provisidns as aforestated, since there ls no provision of suspension under the Riules, 2007, the general provisiOn of suspension as l enshrined in the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Class1f1cat10n Control & Appeal) Rules 1966 would be applicahle as it is made clear that the provisions of the Rules, 2007 would not 11m1t or abridge the powers of the Governor to deal with the cases of any person to whom these rules apply. I Suspension is a necessary concomitant of the servwe conditions, which is not provrded 1n the Rules 2007 It does not mean that the employer does not have the power to deprive the Shiksha Karmis temporarily of ' the functiOns not amounting to any reduction of his rank or statuSu V It is trite that an order of suspension is temporary and does not involve punishment w1th c1v11 consequences Suspensron means a temporary deprivation of the functions not amountmg to any reductlon of hls rank a or his status; The employee under suspension continues to be a Government servant he is not permltted to work keeping in View pendency of departmental enquiry to avord undue influence in the proceedings of departmental enquiry and likely tampering w1th the 10. 11. \ rcord es. th L. Sha v. o ia, the Supreme Court observed as under: ‘ “6. An order of suspension 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 of the proceedings initiated a;gainst him.” This Court, in UKPambhoi v. Stat? of CG. & 0thers2, While dealing with the similar issue, observed as under: 16. 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 of the functions not amounting to. any reduction of his rank 'o‘r his status. The employee under suspension continues to be a Government Servant, he is not permitted to work keeping in view pendency.‘ of departmental enquiry to avoid undue influence in the proceedings of the departmental enquiry and likely tampering with onirecords. At this stage, it is not necessary to go into the charges levelled against the petitioner because it may prejudice the case of the parties wherein the respondents are likely to initiate the departmental enquiry. Impugned order was passed on 27.05.2005 by the State Government. . ...” ‘In view of the foregoing and applying the well settled principles of la t0 the facts of the case on hand, there is no merit in this case and the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. 1 991 scc 546 2 209a (1) cow 229 . g Futer, in P. h Unin ofln ' “ w (18)