.' %"^y&;i 3B*<5^teiLfe 'SKS'W' (^ . f . [O<f IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 W.P.fSI No. Vt-^^ /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^^^. ^.>^y ^y...··^/,v ^',^"^ l<"'.csy' .-' ?fs~ . .••'' ^ <"&>-"" ^" VERSUS i."" r '"'. . 1. ^ 2. 3. 4. /•' 5. 6. / 7. Meena Bhadre aged about 26 years D/o- M.R. Bhadre, Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, posted at Kasturba Gandhi Girls School (Ashram) Kuankonda, Block- Kuankonda, District- Dantewada (C.G.) R/o- Village & post- Bacheli, District- Dantewada (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, department of Panchayat. & Social Welfare, D. K. S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Collector, District- Dantewada (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Dantewada, District- Dantewada (C.G.) District Education Officer, Dantewada, District- Dantewada Block Education Officer, Kuankonda, District- Dantewada (C.G.) Block Resource Co-ordinator, Block- Kuankonda, District- Dantewada (C.G.) In charge Superintendent, Kasturba Gandhi Girls School (Ashram), Kuankonda, Block- Kuankonda, District- Dantewada WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION^FINDIA ^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 2255 OF 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Meena Bhadre Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri F.S.Khare, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 29th day ofApril, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the allegation of serious misconduct on the part of the petitioner, under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Sewa (Conduct) Rules, 1998. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the suspension order is bad in law, as no reasons have been assigned. Secondly, the complaint filed, if any, thatcould not have been acted upon by placing the petitioner under suspension, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thirdly, the petitioner has been attached to a place, which is far away from the original place of posting. 3. Grievance of the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner beforeplacing him on suspension, in view of thealleged complaint filed against him, is misplaced. It is a trite law that suspension is not a punishment, but is an incident of service. The purpose of suspension is to keep away the employee from office work during enquiry to avoid /V^ "a;%^.v ^4>,~°'^ ''?» ^^ "*w^.. ^ 'SSgfe, § v s 3~sfy w.asx" undue influence or to interfere with the process of enquiry. As aforestated, if the suspension is not a punishment, it is not necessary to afford the opportunity of hearing before placing the petitioner under suspension. 4. The well settled proposition of law is that no notice is required to be issued before placing an employee under suspension. Notice is required to be issued only in case of enquiry where the delinquent employee has an opportunity to prove his innocence. The second ground of the petitioner that he has been attached to a place which is far away and thus, the impugned order is bad inlaw, is also not sustainable as it depends on the nature of the allegation. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference by this Court. The order of suspension is just and proper. The allegations leveled against the petitioner are not final and condusive, as the same are matter of enquiry by a competent authority. The petitioner has further failed to make out a case that any prejudice is going to be caused by his transfer from his present place of posting. 5. Be that as it may, it is trite a trite law that an order of suspension is temporary and does not involve punishment with civil consequences. Suspension means a temporary deprivation ofthe 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 permitted to work keeping in view pendency of departmental enquiry to v^ 7. avoid undue influence in the proceedings of depari:mental enquiry and likely tampering with the records. The Supreme Court, in State of Orissa & Others v. Shiva Parashad Das , observed as under: "3.An order of suspension passed against a government servant pending disciplinary enquiry is neither one of dismissal nor of removal from service within Article 311 of the Constitution. This position was clearly laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court 'mMohammad Ghouse v. Stete ofAndhra. It is unfortunate that this decision was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges of the High Court. Clause (1)ofArticle 311 will get attracted only when a person who is a member of Civil Service of the Union or an All-lndia Service or a Civil Service of a State or one who holds a civil post under the Union or a State is "dismissed" or "removed" from service. The provisions of the said clause have no application whatever to a situation where a government servant hgs been merely placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry since such action does not constitute either dismissal or removal from service. The High Court was, therefore, manifestly in error in quashing the order of suspension passed against the respondent on the ground that it was violative of clause (1) of Article 311 of the Constitution". Further, in P.L. Shah v. Union of India , 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 (1985)23cc65 (1989)1 SCC546 --'». disposal of the proceedings initiated against him." 8. This Court, in U.K.Pambhoi v. State of C.G. & Others3. 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 reductionof his rank or 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 on records. At this stage, it is not necessary to Qo 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....." 9. In view ofthe foregoing and applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, there is no merit in this case and the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage. ^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ashok (2006) 1 CGLJ 229