@q HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Wri’t Petition f3) No. 955 of 2009 Petitioner Jhularam, s/o. Bichanram SuryaVanshi (sunervisor) 'Age 45 years integrated Chiid DeVelopmerk Préject, Konga, Head Quarter, Domapai, Dist South Bastar, Dantewara (CG). Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Panchayai and éural Development: Mantra!aya, D‘Ks. Bhawan, Disi Raipur {CG}. Director, Woman and Chiid Welfare Directorate, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, CG. Cotlecter, South Bastar Dantewara, CG, Dist. South Bastar, Dantewafa, CG. Chief. Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Konta,’South Easter, Daétewara (CG). Project Officer, integrated Child Deveiopment Project. Kohta, Head Quarter, Dornapei, Dist. South Easter. Dantewara (CG). iWrit Petition under Articie 226 of Constitution of indie) SB: Hon’bie Mr. Gatish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. Anand Kesharwani, counsei for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sac, Govt. Advocate forthe State. DRAL ORDER {Passed on this 16‘“ day of February, 2999) By this petition, the yétitioner rimpugns the order dated 11-2009 (Annexure PM) passed by the Coiiector, Dist. South Bastar, Dantewara, wherebv the petitioner was pieced under suspension under Ruie 9 {1) (a) of the CG Civii Services/(Classitication Controi & Appeai) Ruies 1966 (for short, "the Rules 1965”). 2) The facts, in nutsheii, are that the petitioner was working in integrated Child Weifare Project, Konta, appointed by the Chief Executive Officer, Dist. Panchayat, South Bastgar, Dantewara. Notice was issued to the petitioner on ,2~ g542—2905 {Annexure W3}. Thereaftev, m repiy to the Show caase netice, the petié§ener has submitted his rapiy on "9-12-2038 (Annexme Pié). iter submiss§on ef regsiv. the Caliectcr. Dist. Scuih Bastar. Dantewara, Dassed éhe impugned owe." en the ground tha€ the pe‘iiiiena was involved in m%s-ccnduc€ an deiinquency in performance 9f his euties. 3‘) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad as the same was passed by ihe Coiiecior, Dist. Souih Basiar, Saniewara. 4) i have heard ieained oounsei for the oeiitioner. oerusee‘ the oieadings anci documenis appended there’io. 5) By memo dated 23-5—1998 the Generai Administration Sepanment has auihorized the Coiiector to exercise power of susoension uncier Reie 9 of ine Ruies "1986 and powers under Ruie 10 of the Ruies 1966 in case of Ciass iii and iV empioyees. Thus, the Coiiector‘is oomseient i0 pass the imnugned order under Section 9 {we} of the Ruies ”5:966. The imougned ordei‘ was nasseci on .74-2007, thus, it cannot ‘oe ‘neid the: inere was no coniempiation of departmeniai enouiry as the oompeteni authority can initiaie the deoanmenéai enquinj within 45 or 9G days, as the case may be. 6) ii is weii seiiied princisies oi iaw ihai the suspension is iempoiary and it does not invoive punishment wiih civii oonsenuenoes. Susoension means a iamnorary deeiivaiion of ihe functions no": amounting to any i‘educiion of his rank oi his status. The emoiovee under susoension continues to be a Government servant, he is not permitte to wom keeoing in View pendenoy of deoar‘irnentai enquiry to avoid undue inr’iuence in theoroceedinu of departmentai enouiry and iikeiv tamoering with the records. /@ 7) m fhe case of unian of Ind§a & others Vs. EG. Namhudiri", the Supreme Coui’t has observed as under: “6 if éhe statutory ruies require communication sf masons, iha same must be communicated but if: the absence of any such prwisicn absence of communiaation of reasons do net affect the vaiidky of *t‘ne m‘der." 8) in the case of $iaie of Mysore Vs. $11.8. 3ai!ary2 aw Vidya Qhar ?ande Vs. V§dyut Grih $iksha $ami1ii and othersa question e? tei’minatien was under consideration invoiving punishment with civii consequences. The Supmme Com? in F.L. Shah Veijmon of india" Ines ceneides’ed nature of suspension and heid as under: “S. An ordea" of suspension iS not an order imposing punishment en a pe¥son found t9 be guilty. it is an order made against him before he is founo gu§lty to ensure smooth disposai of the proceedings initiated againsi him. Such prooeedings snouid be oompieted expediiiousiy in ihe pubiic inierest and eiso in the interest of ihe Governmeni servant coneemed. xxx xxx xxx” g) in View of the foregoing, the suspension order is vaiid and wrii peiiiion is accordingiy dismissed in fimine. Consequently. i.A.i\io.i aiso siands dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotr Judge Raju W Risen 3 SC“ 3s i AIR 1965 SC 868 3 AIR 1989 SC 3m 4 AIR 1989 SC 985