e^u<^5 ^•-••"\n^r-v" ^^l£i^ 0,3s'"" ,\U-f"" .l^-^^^^ p.3°- C.^\y75). IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Banshila] Kenwat, S/o. Sundar Sai, aged about 51 years, Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Office of Development Commissioner, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1] State of Chhattisgarh, through: Principal Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2]' Additional Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL,4SPUR \VRIT PETmON (S) No. 683 of2010 PETITIONER : Banshilal Kenwat. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&another. WRrr pETmoN UNDER AKTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITLTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Slm Satish K. Asmhotri, J. Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for fhe State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed oa 17t" day of Februan', 2010) Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits that the petitioner, working as Superintending Engiaeer, Rural Engineering Services, Raipur, has been placed under suspeiision vide order dated 30.01.2010 (Annexure P/i) under the provisions of Rule 13 of the ClAattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Shri Paranjpe submits that the impugned suspension order is not maintainable as there is no contemplation of enquiry against the petitioner as is evident fi-om the note sheet ofthe Additional Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Developmeat Deparfaiieiit, dated 22.12.2009. Thus, the impugned order ofsuspension may be quashed. On perusal ofthe note sheet dated 02.12.2009, ofthe minister concemed offhe Panchayat and Rural Development Departmeiit, it appears fhat it has been directedto hold departmental enquiry againstthe petitioner. It is tiite that an order of suspension is temporar^,' and does not involve punishinent with civil consequences. Suspension means a teinporaiy •S^SSsV^!-^-^:, ^Sks^^. A* -^ '^ ''l?..''(^. 4. deprivation ofthe lunctions not amounting to any reduction ofhis rank or his status. The employee under suspension continues to be a Govemment servairt, he is not pennitted to work keepiiig in view pendency of depai'tmental enquir^- to avoid undue hitluence in the proceedings of departmental enquiry and likely tampering wifh the records. (See : State ofOrissa & Others v. Shiva Parashad Das^ and P.L. Shah v. Union oflndic^). In view offhe foregoing and applying the well settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe case on hand, no mterference is warraiited with the impugned suspension order dated 30.01.2010 (Amiexure P/l). Accordmgly, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. However, if no charge sheet is issued against the petitioner witliin a period of 45 days or 90 days, as fhe case may be, the petitioner is at libertyto approachthis Court, ifso advised.j Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge AtIlB: ' (1985)25cc 65 2 (1989) 1 SCC 546