<& ^oc31 l-A IN THE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.PtiNO. 37-fi1_____/2006 PETITIONER ^" I.P. Sarthi, S/o. P.R. Sarthi, aged about 36 years, Sub Engineer, R/o, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ~> RESPONDENTS3^ ^y. -<i¥k^ \. ^' VERSTJS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, Department of • Urban Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Director, Town Administration & Development, Directorate, Raipur {C.G.) /',3. Commissioner, Municipal Corporatioi District RaigarhfC.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ART!CI£ 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FQR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT INJTHE NATURE QFMANDAMUS. PROHremON. CERTIORARI ETC. OR OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JVSTICE IN THE fi F^. HftM rtftl 1 'SHK. t i Petitioner i.P. Sarthi State of Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mr. Sunii Otwani, counsei for the petitioner. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and2, !Vlr. B.D.Guru, counselfor respondsnt No.3. (Passed on 11I!I of October, 2006) Learnsd counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the posf of Sub-Engineer in the Municipai Corporation, Raigarh. By the impugned ordsr dated 9-6-2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3, the petitioner was piaced under suspension for mlsuse of Municipal Corporation's property. The petitioner has chailenged the impugned order on the ground that the same was passed by an authority who is nsither an appointlng authority nor a disciplinary authority. Secondly, respondent No.3 has not obtained approval of the appolnting authority as provided under Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Civil Ser»'lces (Classification, Controi and Appeai) Rules, 1966 (henceforth 'the Rules of 1963). 2. 'nave heard learned counsei for the parties and perused records appended to the petition. 3. A bars reading of the impugned orcer dated 9-6-200S (Annexure P-1) makes it ciear thatths suspenslon order was passad i.n contemplation of departmental enquiry as it is cieariy stated in the order that charge-sheet etc. v/ould be issued separateiy. The impugned suspenslon order was reported forthwith to ths appointing authority, i.e., Commissioner-cum-Director, Town Administration and Development Department, Directorate, Raipur. The impugned order is just and proper and passed in accordance with Rule 9 of fhe Ruies of 1966. The relevant provisions ofRuie 9 ofthe Ruies of 1966 reaa' as under:- "9. (1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empov/ered in that behalf by the Governor by seneral or speciai order, may place a Government seroant under suspension - (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) where a case against hlrn in respecl ffll crirriinai offence is undsr inventilation, snquiry of trial: Provided that a Government Servant shaii mvsriabiy be piaced under suspension when a chalian for a criminai offence invoivlng corruption or other morai turpitude is fii< aaainst him: Provided further that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing author'ty, suc'n authority shalS forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made." 7 4. Second proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Ruies of 1966 prescribes that where the order of suspenslon is made by an authority iower than the appointing authority, such authority shai! forthwith report to the appointing authority the c.'rcumstances in which the order was made. 5. AdmitSedly, respondent NoiS is not the appointlnf authority, but respondent No.2 is the appointing authority. Respondent No.3, while piacing the petitioner under suspension, had reported to ths appointing authority, i.e., Commissioner-cum-Director, Town Admlnistration and Deveiopment Department, Directorate, Raipur 6. it is submitied by learned counse' for the petitioner that no approval has been obtained by the appolntjng authorlty. Once the charge-sheet has bsen issued, it is deemed to have been approved by the appointing authority. 7. !t is weii settied principle of iaw that the suspension is temporary and it doss not involve punishment with civif consequences. Suspension means a temporary deprivation of the functions not amounting to any reduction of his rank or his siatus. The smployee under suspension continues to be a Government Sen/ant, he is not permitted to work keeping in view pendency of departmental enquiry to avoid undue influence in the proceedings of departmsntei enqulr/ and ikelytampering with on records. — ' ~~ "- 8- For the reasons aforestated and dismissed. No order as to costs. as a resutt, this petition is Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gopsi