IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W $§§§$LE ama WRIT PETITION MS M&a Ram, S/o- té Shri Jagtru Ram, Ad abot ear Presently work s c e- , Z1 Pahayat— Rajnandao lst ajnandgao Chtlsgar ' VERSUS Stat hattar e ofChisgh Through— Secretary/Undr Scretar e ey Dept of Panhayat and Rural Developmn awa Maralay Rarpu Chhatlsgar ollecto t c et D K S Bhn nta r th Cr, ajnanao, Distt. Raandgaon, haisga. Rdgn jn Chttrh , ‘ie Excutive icer, J,,,,,Chf e Off la ancha— Rajnangaon, Dist. aandaon, Chhattir. RESPONDENTS WRITx PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE s Nos 7,» v“ 0 »w La ge u 46 ys mg a Pm}et Ofiier 1a nc gn Dt Rn hath PETITIONER Zi P‘yat d‘ t Rjng sgah OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARIETC. ‘ ) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S)'NO.5145 OF 2010 Petitioner Mahavir Ram Versus ‘ Respondents State of Chha’ttisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of‘the Constitution of India) Singie Bench Hon ble Shrl Satish K Agnihotri J Present :- Shn Panka Shnvastav Advocate forthe petine Sa Panel awyrfor e tat Shri Ru Taar Adv f t reont No ahl amsk ocate or he spden 3 Paed o thi 14‘“ day Jua 1) (ss n s of anry, 201 The peoer ggrieved by the ord d 23/08/0 (Annexe titin a er date 210 ur 1 r ha e er ss on te ground that he ptioner ha opd wthzte traer h t eti s not cmlie ih nsf e. tha as a witho gong to he fcts of the cas, whre Be t it my, ut i in t a e e te is compiance o the od o , e qestn nvoved n her l f rer r not th uio il i the cas ao hethr upenSIon cn b odered by way of e st we ss a e r punishment unr rViSIon o R ) ofhe Chhattiar CIVI a de pOs f ule 9(1 t sgh I ,rc laftio, ontrl ppeal u, 6 (r hort "t‘;ue, 19 Iisuabl, is the ii excet Rule 9 of the Rule 1966 wich povde fo cng an ‘ emploe under susensn. Thr nly tw ditios where ye pio ee are o o conn " ca ‘ ein. 1) of e Rl 1966 provides f suspension in foll cas:- ‘Sevies (Cssiican CO & A) Rles 196 fo s heRls 66”) ndpty there no or provson p , h ris r plai ue or owing se r“ . (a), Where a dissiplinary proceeding against him i I contemplated oris pendingor s , , - _ ‘j' } a tior Shri AV ridhr Le th Se ORDER (ORAL) . TIP/) whereby the petitione s ben placed und upension , ordr an employee n beplaced under suspnso Rule 9( th, Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or triaL a On query, whether a criminal case is pending or any criminal offence has been fiied or any other departmentai enquiry was contempiated or pending consideration, Shri Sridhar, learned anel Lawyer appearing for the State submitsthat no enquiry was cotemp ainsth tiioer. . nlated gate petn be (2 of he ule 90 t 196 p fo ime Su-rul -a) t R f he Rules; 6 rescribes r t imit fo placing e uspen atr the rd o ssio is l r undr snsio fe oer f supenn pasd h o i ps by or th h te Gormnt, empoye cat be ce unde upo f mre 4 days it ssed y Sta Gvrment e pe is 90 riod days. . e ( u f le, 966 d Subérulsk(2—a) and 2—b) of Rle 9 o the Rus 1 rea as under : se. lf te rder s ased the an te ‘Sta vene le nno plad r ssensin or o than 5 and if is pa b the te oen th “(-. r er s place er eio dr cue o b— re 1), te or f ssion hall conai h ul ( h der o upens s tn te reas f such .odr and whre .i is son or making re e t‘ proOsed old ry aains uch verne n er o f t , tles s, th tatet/fiins o i n o s nes hi e o e in al is u - e s b t isp uthit su e rvt e y b-ru 4) of Ru wh ‘ri ys f t at o o seo P h t islin utit at r, cs r s o s i a o d ch vnn n ii a e s he dae d ss h cipln it ils a r su - w s i th erod ta in th t (b) P Za) Whee a Govnment servant i d und suspnsn une las (a) f su p to h an enqui gt s Gomnt servat und‘rule 14, a cpy o he aric of charge e smeno‘mputato of misconduct r misbehaVour ad a list f document and witses by wch each articl f charg is proposed to be sustaed shl be sued or ca‘sed to b isued y he dcilinary, aory to ch Governmnt sean as requird b sule ( le 14, itin apeod of 45da rom he de f order f uspnsin: rovided tat where he dcipary ahory is'the Ste Govenment the copy of harge and othe document mentined above hall be ssued , or cused t be issue to su Goermet servat wthn priod Of 9O day from t tof orer of upension. I (2-b) Were the dis/iary authory fa to issue to the Government servant, copy of the chages and other documents referred to in b— rule (2a') ithin the period of 45 day, the disciplnary auority shall, before expiry of the said pi, obin orders in writg of e Stae Government for extension of the said period o'f Provided that the period of suspension shail in no case be enhanced beyond a period of 90 days from the dateof the order of suspension.” suspension: aslpassed on 23/08/2010 thereafter,’ no nitiated tin' date for more uiry that suspension order after 45 6. The impugned order w enquiry or department enquiry has been i ‘ than 120 days. Even, if there was a contemplation of enq cannot be relied upon for sustaining the days or 90 days, as the case may be. ln view of foregoing, the impugned suspension order dated the petitioner under 23/08/2010 (Annexure P/1) placing nsion without any departmenta' l enquiry or without being suspe criminal offence against the petitioner, is quashed: However, t if so advised “Wt : respondent authorities may take appro in accordance With law. writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Accordingly, the N I S'd/_ ‘ .No order asto costs. {%‘{S;atish.K Agnihotri. ‘ .i‘%‘-J.lldge‘