c ! -\OQ ..<MR< P B^ IN THE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH A^T BILASPUR W.P.No. "??--?^ /2006 PETITIONER%w ^y"^ o^^y ..•''-vSf\t'ffi ...•'"'^l^y ^^" ^y RESPONDENTS .^^ ^' '.,»' y ^ /' t- / R.C. Verma S/Q Shri B.C.L. Verma aged about 51 years Lecturer (Maths) Govt. Higher Secondary School, Manpur District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State .of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary Department of Tribal Welfare (S.C.S.T. & O.B.C. &Minority) Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner Triba] Welfare. (S.C.S.T. & O.B.C. &Minority),Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaron (C.G.) 4. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mohla, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5. Principal Government Higher Secondary School Manpur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) v ^ // 2 // WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE C ON ST 1 TUT 1 ON OF INDIA a^. y- ">:' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition No. 2736 of 2006 Petitioner R. C. Venua Versus Respondents State of Cbliattisgarh & others ORDER ^ Postfor 5^-2-2007 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge .3-2-200T ^y ) -] HIQH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Slirl Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P.No. 2736 of 2006 Petitioner : R. C. Venna Versus Respondent : Sta.tc of Chhattisgarh & offaei-s Miss Deepali Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V. V. S. Moorfhy, Deputy Advocate General witli Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt, Advocate for the respondents. ( Passed oa this b ' 'day of February, 2007) 1. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 24.5.2006, whereunder the petitioner was placed under suspension in. view of fhe allegatioas of reinaining absent froia fhe Gram. Swaraj Abhiyan and fiirfher not taking tnterest iii teachiag activities. 2. The tacts, ia nutsheU, are that fh.e petitioner was workiag as Lecturer ia Govenunent Higher Secondary School, Manpur, district - Rajnandgaon. The CoUector issued fhe order dated 16.4.2006 (Annexure R/ 1), stating thereia fhat fhe State Goverruaent under the direction of the Chief Minister has decided to visit niral areas froni 8th May, 2006 to 11th May 2006 aad 15th May 2006 to 18th May 2006 under fhe Grain Swaraj Abhiyaa. It was specificaBy stated ia fhe order fhat all the ofiicers/einployees appoiated for fhe purpose ofthe Gram Swaraj Abhiyan would adhere to tbe time schedule strictly. The petitioner was also directed vide order dated 19.4.2006 (Annexure P13} to attend fhe traiiuiig to be held on 26.4.2006 ia fhe Higher Secondary School, Maupur. 3. The petitioner participated ia fhe training on 26.4.2006. On the saine day fhe petitioner niade an application to the ChiefExecuti.ve Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Maupur (Annexure P/4) for leave to attend High Court of Chhattisgarh, BUaspur ia coiinection with fhe contenipt case filed by his wife Smt. Maaju Verina. 4. Accoidtag to ftie respondents, tn view of the baa on leave the pennission for leave was refiised. Tfae petitioner despite refiisal of leave lailed to attend fhe of6.ee and proceeded on leave. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mohla vide raeruo dated 19.5.2006 (Aiinexure R/2) informed to fhe Collector fhat fhe petitioner durmg traiaing inade an apptication for leave which was not granted to Tiini. The petitioner was iafonaed about the schedule of fhe Giaia Swaraj Abhiyan by letter dated 10/11.5.2006 and fh.e same was pasted on fhe house of the petitioner, as fhe petitioner left fhe office wifbout perraission of fhe competent ofiicer. The said letter dated 10/11,5.2006 (Annexure P/5) was sent to the petitioner for attendin; ftie Grara Swaraj Abhiyau ia block chowky/mohral/Manpur. The petitioner was assigned fhe duties atfoUowuig places:- 8.5.2006 - SaBiehatti, Bagdogri, 9.5.2006 12.5.2006 13.5.2006 15.5.2006 16.5.2006 17.5.2006 Gudaras, Gattepayli, Warkunji, Gattegahaa, Dogargaon, MedhaMiurd, Sarkheda Morchul, Bodegaon, Ghofhiyafcaabar, Palebhatthi, Halepayii. The letter was fiirfher sent by registered post, also which according to the petitioner was received on 18.5.2006. On 17.5.2006 the concenied Miruster visited Maapur. On ftiat day fhe petitiouer was iiot Ibund fhere on duty and it was furfher com.plamed by fhe residents of ftie area that fhe petitioner remaias absent uivariably aad be does not take a&y iaterest iu teachiag also. The concemed Minister directed the Additional Coiiimissioner, Scheduled Caste aad Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Rajnaudgaon to place fhe petitioner under suspension. Accordingly fhe impugned order dated 24.5.2006 (Aniiexure P/li was passed. 5. Miss Deepali Pandey, learaed counsel appearuig for ftie petitioner inipugned fhe suspension order oa fhe ground that ttie order is malafide exercise of powers as wife of the petitioner Sint. Manju Venaa has filed a conteiupt petition agauist the Assistaat Commissioner, Tribal WeUare, Rajnaudgaon. The order wbich was aUeged to have not been coinpUed wifh was received by the petitioner on 18.5.2006 and it was not possible for Wn\ to coinply with fhe same. The petitioner has shown extraorduiary results ia flie examiaation. The petitioner had inade an application for leave, the same should tiave been graated which was not done aad fhe petitioner could not be punished for fhe same. She lastly contended fhat fhe suspension order be quashed on fhe ground of non- availabflily of tlie aiaterial for alleged irregularily. 6. Sbri V. V. S. Murfhy, leamed Deputy Advocate General wifb. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate, appearing for fhe respondents, per contra, subinitted that tbe order dated 16.4.2006 (Aruiexure R/1), issued by fhe CoUector, made it clear that the Gram Swarai Abhiyaa ui rural areas was a programine of the govenuuent aad no oiBcer/eniployee woiild be granted any head qiiarter leave, wifhout peraaission of fhe CoUector. Leave was baaned during that period. 4 The petitioner, durftig his teaiaing on 24.6.2006, submitted aa application for leave and without waiting for approval, left fhe head quarter wifhout permission fhat aruounts to serious inisconduct. It was furtlier contended fhat fhe leave was never siaated to the petitioner. The schedule prograxame of fhe Graiu Swaraj Abhiyan was comiaunicated to the petinoner in tirne by pastiag fhe sarae on the residence of the petitioner as fhe petitioner had left fhe headquarter without permission of the coinpetent authority. A copy of the letter was sent by registered post also which was received later on and as such there was no occasion to serve fhe petitioner in person. 7. I have heard leamed counsel or ftte parties aad perused the records appended t6 the petition as well as the retiim. 8. On perusal of fhe docuinents appended to the pleadings, it is clear ttiat fhe petitioner had left the headquarter wifhout pennissiou of tb.e coinpetent authonty, wtien it was specifically stated iii the oider dated 16.4.2006 fh.at the officers/employees wfao are assigned the responsfoiLity of fhe Grain Swaraj Abhiyan would not leave fhe head quarter vvifhout permission of the CoHector aad furttier leave was bauned during fhat period. On the poiut that fb.e suspension order was passed on the nialafide exercise of powers is without aay niaterial. The contenipt application was filed by the wtfe of fhe petitioner against fhe Assistant Coiuinissioner, Tribal Wetfare. On perusal of fhe note-sheet (Annexure R/3) it appears that fhe petitioner was found absent from duty during fhe Gram Swaraj Abhiyan at Maapur on 17.5.2006, where the Miaister conceraed directed to suspend fhe petitioner and tlie same was approved by the Miiuster conceraed as weU as the Miaister of the concemed SS^SSSST^® departiaent. Thus, the allegation of the Bialadde is not proved beini without aay basis. 9. Service of fhe letter dated 10/11-5-2006 on 18.5.2006 on the petitioner is also wifhout any basis. When aa employee leaves headquarter during the ban period withozit penaission of the coinpetent aufhority, it is weU settled that aay order/notice/proceediags has to be pasted on fhe residence of fhe concemed of&cer/eiiiployee, particularly whea tlie time is so short fhat fhe order caruiot be served by registered post. In the present case, the petitioner very weU knew about the Gram Swaraj Abliiyau. ia advaace. He was further aware of the period of ftie Grain Swaraj Abhiyan i. e. to be held between 8.5.2006 to 11.5.2006 and 15.5.2006 to 18.5.2006. The petitioner also attended ta-amin.g and in fhe course of fhe traiuing on 26.4.2006 he left fhe trainiag after inakixig au application wifhout waitmg for approval. Under fhese facts and circuinstelices, it is necessary to enquire into fhe aUeged charged levelled against the petitioner by proper enquuy. 10. Leamed counsel for ffae petitioner oraily subiuits tiiat fhe charges raade thereafter be also quashed, wifhout chaUengiag the same by way of ainendinent of fhe petition or by filuig substan.tive petition. The said grouad caniiot be considered. Even otlierwise, the Supreine Court ia fhe case of TJnion of India aad another v. Kuaisetty Satyaaarayaaa1 observed fhat ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertamed agaiast inere show cause notice or charge sheet, as at ttiat stage fhe writ petition niay be held to be preinature. 11. It is weU setfled principle of law fhat fhe suspension is teinporary and it does not uivolve punishraent with evil consequences. Suspension ineans a tem.porary deprivation of fhe iX fiuictions aot amounting to any reduction of his rank or his status. The enipioyee under suspension contuiues to be a Goverrunent Servant, he is not permitted to work keeping io. view pendency of deparcmental enquiry to avoid undue iafluence in fhe proceeduigs of departinental enquuy and Kkely tampering with on records. At fhis stage is it not necessary to go into the chai^es levelled against the petitioner because it m.ay prejudice the case of the pardes ui the pending departniental enquiry (see Stat. PUIoiniaa Ekka Vs. State 12. I do not propose to exanune fhe aUegations inade in the suspension order as the enquity is already pendiag consideration. This order wiU not com.e ia. the way of enquiry, pending agaiust the petitioner on inerit. The enquiring aufhority inay proceed with the enquiry unialluenced by this order. 13. In view of the foregoiag, the petition is disaiissed. There shsdl be no order as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1. {2007 (1) SCJ 102 }a 2. { 2006 (2) C.G.L.J. 64}2 Thakur