(f ^7 (••-. INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR " WRIT PETITION fS) No. \\^ of 2010 PETITIONER Dr. Minketan Pradhan, ^ Q SHW Professor (Hindi), Kirodimal (/p^^awv Govt. -Arts----& ---Science w^flK"^ College, Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENTS \r^^^ .»'w ^i>/ ^•^ !i;- x' ;>9?~ S~f ^eW-S Versus /' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ' The Commissioner, Higher Education, Govt. Science College Campus, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Principal, Govt. Kirodimal Arts 85 Science College, Raigarh (C.G.) WRITPETITIONUNDER_ARTICLE226_ QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r> A TVTVTr^T TT A T^f^ /-^T7> /H3 u /^-Ff '~ £p mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) No. 1195 of2010 PETITIONER : Dr. Minketan Pradhan. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish ICAgnihotn^J. Present: Shri Gautam Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 22nd day of March, 2010) Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner, working as Professor (Hindi), at Govemment Kirodimal Arts & Science College, Raigarh, was placed under suspension. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that pursuant to the order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure P/3), transfer of various Professors and Assistant Professors were made. In the said order, one N.K.Pradhan was shown to be posted at Govemment Kirodimal Arts & Science College, Raigarh as Professor, Hindi. The respondent No. 3, i.e. the Prfncipal sought clarification from the State Govemment that no such person is posted there vide communication dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure P/4). Subsequently, on 08.09.2009 (Annexure P/5), tlie petitioner was relieved pursuant to the order dated 30.06.2009. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation and the relieving order was cancelled by order dated 17.09.2009 (Annexure P/6). The State 3. 4. .</' > Govemment, vide order dated 23.09.2009 (Annexure P/2) clarified that the name ofN.K.Pradhan be read as Dr. M.K.Pradhan. In the meantime, since the petitioner suffered with ailment ofviral Hepatitis, he went on leave on 18.10.2009 (Annexure P/7). Thereafter, since he could not recover from the ailment, he continued to be on leave and vide application dated 18.01.2010 (Annexure P/12) requested the respondent No. 3 to extend his medical leave for a further period of 30 days. The respondent No. 3, by memo dated 05.02.2010 (Annexure P/13), while retuming his application in original, directed the petitioner to make application to the concemed College as he was akeady relieved vide order dated 24.10.2009. Thereafter, on 18.02.2010 (Amiexure P/14), the petitioner also made an application to the Commissioner, Directorate of Higher Education, for extending his medical leave. Shri Bhaduri, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without considering the compelling facts and circumstances of the petitioner whereby the petitioner could not comply with the transfer order, the respondent authorities have issued the impugned order dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short tthe Rules, 1966y), on the allegation that the petitioner has not assumed his duties at Govemment College, Baikunthpur and has disobeyed the order ofthe Govemment. On pemsal of the records, it is apparent that the transfer order was passed on 30.06.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved from Kirodimal Govemment Arts & Science College, Raigarh on 08.09.2009. ..?ysha- \ ^. ^"^SS'T'-'^V^^" The said order was cancelled vide order dated 17.09.2009. In the meantime, the petitioner went on medical leave on 18.10.2009. The respondent. The respondent No. 1, by order dated 23.10.2009, •corrected the name of the petitioner shown in fhe transfer order. The petitioner requested for extension ofhis leave to the respondent No. 3 as well as to the respondent No. 2. The petitioner, on 04.11.2009 made a representation to the respondent No. 2 for cancellation ofhis transfer on the ground that his parents are old aged and suffering from various diseases, he is the only son to look after them. His wife is also anemic, his two children are studying in primary and middle school at Raigarh itself. On minute pemsal of the order dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure P/l) impugned herein, it is found that the petitioner was relieved from Govemment Kirodimal Arts & Science College, Raigarh on 24.10.2009 for the second time. The earlier relieving order dated 08.09.2009 was cancelled vide dated 17.09.2009. The petitioner has been suspended on account of disobedience of the order of the State Govemment by not complying with the transfer order after the second relieving order was passed. The contention of the petitioner that he was seriously ill, thus, he could not comply with the transfer order. Suspension is always subject to initiation of disciplinary proceedings or if any case against the employee in respect of criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or to-ial. Though, it is not specified in the impugned suspension order that there was any contemplation of enquiry, even otherwise, if enquiry is not initiated within a period of 90 days, in case suspension order has been passed by the State ^.rfff?!, ^4,...€^tel ,,%^y^ > ^ :-7'^-. '7^ Govemment, the suspension order stands revoked, under the provisions of sub mle 2(b) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1966. It has not been brought into the notice ofthis Court that any enquiry has been proposed till date. In that event, ifno enquiry is initiated to find out the facts of allegations made in the suspension order within the specified time, the suspension order shall be revoked as the suspension order cannot be treated either a punishment or an order visiting with civil consequences. 7. It is trite that an order of suspension is temporary and does not involve punishment with civil consequences. Suspension means a temporary deprivation of the functions not amounting to any reduction of his raak or his status. The employee under suspension continues to be a Govemment servant, he is not permitted to work keeping in view pendency of departmental enquiry to avoid undue influence in the proceedings of departmental enquiry and likely tamperfng with the records. (See : State of Orissa & Others v. Shiva Parashad Das and P.L. Shahv. Union oflndia). 8. In view ofthe foregoing and applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, no interference is warranted with the impugned suspension order dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure P/l), at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit ' (1985) 2 SCC 65 2 (1989) 1 SCC 546