— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR SLB. : HON'BLEMR.SATISHK.AGNIHOTM.J. WRTT PETITION (St No. 1449 of20 7. PETITIONER RE8PONDENTS Smt. VimlaGiri, vnfe ofShri Pftambar Giri, scsed about 48 yeass, working as Assistant Teacher, Govemmetn Hi^i School, Sarona, Distt. Kanker (C.G.) resident of Pani Tarid Road, Bharripara, Sarona, Kanker (CG). VERSUS 1. State of CMtattisgaxfa, Ihrough Ae Secretary, Departaeat of Tribal Wel&re, Dau Kalyan Siagb Bhawaa, Rsipur (C.G.) 2. The Assistant ConHnissima-, Tribd Welfare Department, Distt. Kanker. (C.G.) 3. Principal, Govsrametrt Higher Seeondary School, Sarona, Kaafcer (C.G.) 4. Rajendra Bishta, son of Bhola Datta Bishte, aged about 47 yeuTS, resident ofvillageand post Sarona, P.S. Dadhona, Distt. Kanfcw (C.G.) Present: Shri Rahul Jha, Advocate for Ifae petitioner. Miss Deepali Paadey Panel Lawyer for tfa®State/resp<mdeirts 1 to 3. None appeais for respondeat ao. 4. ORDSR (Passed on 13th ofMarch, 2007) 1. The petitioner, while working as A^istant Teacher ia OoveraiaeBt Higher Secondaiy Sehool, Sarona, District Kante was suspended by order dated 12.2,2007 (Annexure P/10) on the ground tiiat in view of severa] complaiste, a disciirfinary proceediags agaiast her is contemplatBd. 2. The leamed eounsel app»ringfor the petitionCT submits that she is a vietim ofacase. Charge-sheet has been filied against the respondeat no.4. 3. Be that as it may. It is for the petitioner to prove tiie &ct as to whetfaer a false complaint was made or not in the discipliaaty proeeedings. TUs Coart cannot examine the fectual aspect <rf" the matter for which a disciplinary is-oceeding is coutemplated. The impugaed order of su^iension passed under section 9(lXa) efM.P. Civil Services (Controt, Classification and Appeal) RvSes, 1966 which cleariy provides that tiie aiyomtiag awtiiority or aay au&ority to which it is subordinate or tbe discipliaary aulfaority or aay oifeer aulfaorily empowered in behaIfofGovemnientbygeaeralor q?ecial ordea", may place the goveramCTit servaat under suspenslon where a disciplinary proceedmgagamsthimis contemplated oris pendiag. 4. There is ao grievaiiee that tiie offieer passing tbe impugned suspeasion order is not a competent authority. Admittedly, the departmefltal proceedings agaiast her is coatemplated ^i r^uined undfsr section 9(1 Xa) ofM.P. Civil Services (Control, Classtficatioa and Apped) Rules, 1966. 5. It is well settled principle of law tfaat the suspeosioa is iempotasy and it does not involve punishment with evil consequaices. Suspension means a temporary deprivation of the fiinetfons aot amounting to any reduetion ofhisrankor his status.The empltyee under suspension continues to be a GovemmCTt Sereafl^ he is aot pennitted to work keeping ia view pendaicy of dq»artnienta! enquiry to avoid uadue influenee in the proceediags of the departmental enquiry and likely tamperitig with on records. At Ais stage is it not necessary to go into the eharges levelled agwast tiie petitioner beeause it mscy prejudiee the case of the parties in the pending departmental eaquity (See. Smt. Philomiaa Ekfca Vs Stote ofC.G. & Others'). 6. I do not propOTe to examiae fhe allegations made ia tiie suspmsic® order asthe enquiry is already pmding considerati<m. This ordet will not come ia the way ofenquiry, pending ^ainsft tiie petitioaer on merit. The enqiiiry aulhority may proceed witfi tiie enquiiy uainfluenced by this order. 7. In view offoregoing, fhe petition is dismissed. No order as to coste. 8. Consequently, MfW)P No. 929/2007, urterimrelie^ stairis disposedof. applioatioa for grant of Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit 1. 2006(2)C.G.L.J.64