HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR i WRIT PETITION (S) NOL5027 OF 2010 Petitio’ner PrakaSh ‘ingh Chandel Versus Respohdents State of C 1hattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the‘Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K; Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panei Lawyer for the State. Shri Akhilesh Kumar Advocate for the respondent No.3 ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 14‘“ day of January, 201 1) 1. 'i'he petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 25/08/2010 (Annexure P/1)‘ whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension on V the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the transfer order. 2 . , Be that as it may, without going into_the facts of the case, where there is compliance of the order o‘r not, the question involved in the icase asto whether suspension can be ordered by way of punishment under provisions of Rule 9(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil ' Sen/ices (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules 1966 (for short ,“the‘ Rules 1966") Indisputably, there 1s nb other prov13lon except Rule 9 of the Rule 1966 which provndes for placmg an employee under suspenSIon There are only two conditions where an employee can be placed under suspenSIon Rule 9(1) of the Rule 1966 prowdes for suspensron in followmg cases:- (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or Where a caseagainst him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, in‘quiry or trial. On query, whether a criminal case is ending or any criminal i i offence has been filed or any other departmental enquiry wa _ l contemplated or pending consideration, Shr Sridhar, learned i P:anel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that no enquiry wa contemplated against the petitioner. r f e 1966 pescribes or tim imit for placing under suspension after ttie order of suspension is i passed. If the orderiis passed bygother than the State I Government, employee cannot be placed under suspension for more than 45 days and if it is passed b the State Government the y period is 90 days. Sub-rules (2-a) and (2-b) of Rue 9 of te Rules, 1966 read . l h under : as ‘ (b) sub-rule (2-a) of the Rule 9 of the Rules; l “ e pl r d e sb- ule ’ an e e ‘rope l h u u o rticl f r am on cdu isaur l o nt an ies b hi ec rl r s prpos to b saied shall b iued or cause oed e ustn e ss d g to isud b te dicipny auy to such be se y h sliar thorit ov ean eir su-ru (4 ul 4 pd 45 ay m at of d o suenio Provided hat where te disciplnay uthrit t h ir aoy t p o r d t ent s i o c t iti f ay rom’ o r g susnSIo pen. - i ri a o t s h carg cn r i‘- r n e y u f r h rs n the ate s s ” (2 a) Where a Government srvant is i aced unde suspension uner claus (a) of u i r (1) the order of suspenSIon shall contain the i resos for making such ordr and wher It is posd to hod an enqUIry against suc 1' Government servant nder rle 14; a cpy of the aes o chages, the stteent of imputatis of . misonct or mbehvio and a ist f documes d wtness y wch ah atice of chage i Gernment srvt as rquedby ble ) of : Re 1, within a erio of ds fro the de 5 orer f spsn: is he State Government, the coy f chages an , oher ddcums mentioned» above hall be ssued V or caused t be issued to suh Government servan whn a period o 90 ds fthe date f orde of I (2b) Where the discplinary authoty fils t r l issue‘ to the GoVernmen ervant, a copy of te , hes and-other doumets eferred to nxsub ule (2-a) Withi th period of 45 das the ' dismplinary athority shall beore expiy of te said period obtain orde rn writig of St ‘ Government for extension of the said period of ; suspensuon: i i Provided that the period of su ‘pension shali in no case be enhanced beyond a‘ period of 90 days ; 1 from the date of the order of suspension." ‘ Theiimpugned order was passed on 25/08/2010 thereafter, no i i i i enqdiry or department enquiry has been init ated ‘till date for more than: 120 days. Even, if there was a contemipiation of enquiry that i Cannot be relied upon for sustaining the suspension order after 45 days or 90 days, as the case may be. §_ r i In View of foregoing, the impugned suspension order dated , , 25/0;8/2010 (Annexure P/1) placing the petitioner under suspension without any departmentai enquiry or without being I ' criminal offence against the petitioner, is quashed. However, i respondent authorities may take appropriate action, if so advised in accordance with Iaw. Accordihgiy, the writ petition isallowed to th”e"‘a"bove extent. ”M Sd/- No order ao cos. (“"N" "T st st V Satish K. Agnihotri Judge