^^ fsM^- ^ ^)-" ?1 AP^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition N®.4^1 of2004 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Khilawan Prasad Purena, S/o Pancham Das Pweaa, aged about 39 years, oecupation Forest Gaard at Sita Nadi Range Head Qr. Sihava Distt. DhamtEwi R/o village ^fc Post Lakholi, Tehsil Arang, Distt. Raipur (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Throagh its Secretary Department ofForest DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. ChiefConservator ofForest, Raipar (CG). 3. Divisional Forest Officer, General Forest Division, Dhamtari Distt. Dhamlari (CG). 4. Superintendent of Police, Aati Comiptions Burc^u, Raipur(CG). (WRIT PETTHON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE COSrSirTUTION OF E^DIA) , rSB: Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Asmliotri. J.V Present : Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the peti^ooer. ShriP.K. Bhaduri, PanelLawyerforthe State. ORALORDER (Passed oai 11th day ofiteptember, 2008) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks qwashing ef tiie order dated 07.02.2003 (Aimexure P/3), whereby, the petitioner h^i been ptaced under suspension. 2. The facts, relevant for adjiidicstioti ofthe dispute is that, a case for ofifences of illegal gratification, was registwed l^ the Airti Cormption Bureau under tiie provisions of seetions 7 aad 13(1) D read with section 13 (2) ofthe Preventfon ofCorruplSon Acl^ 1988 (for short ^he Act, 1988), which resvAied in the acquittal hy the Special Judge(P.C. Act), Raipur, o»23M2QQQ, in Special Criminal Case No. 14/2000 (Annexure P/l ). .^"\ 1 '^. '^^./^ '^A^'' < 3. The suspension ©ftheperitioner duriag pendency ofthe trial was revoked. Thereafter, the State preferred an appeal whieli is pendmg considemtion. On the ground of pendeacy of appeal, the present impugned order dated 07.02.2003 (Afiaexure P/3), pladag the petitioner again on suspension, is pissed. Bemg aggrfeved, tfie petitioner has filed this petition. 4. Shri Vinay Paadey, leamed couasel appeariag for the petitioner submits that tiiere is no provision to plaee an employee ut»d@r suspension during pendency of appeat when the employee tos beeo acquitted in a criminal ease from the trial Court: 5. After heariag learaed counsel for the parties and perasiag the petition and the records appended thereto, it is evident tiiat acquittal of the petitioner bylhe Special Judge in the toial Court is not disputed. Pendency of Ihe appeal is idso not disputed. Tfe^ coiitention of leamed counsel for respondents is Ihat during pendency ofthe appeal, the suspension ofthe petition^ cannot b@ revoked, is not sustainable. Since the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal trial by the trial Court, the petitioner camiot be continued under suspension. Evea ifthe petitioner is ultunately found gialty in the appeal, consequeRtial order can be pasased. The siiqiension iswst a punishment. The puipose of suspenswn ts to ke^ the delinquent away from tl^ work in order to eiisure sanooth disposal of invesEtigation, inquiry or trial. In the case of ^ppeid, there is no question of any fresh evidence or d^iosition, which can be iafluenced by the petitioner or farther reeords can be tampered witii. The very purpose of keeping an employee under susqpension m not <.y required in an appellate proceeding. Thus, tfae suspension order dat©d©7.02.2003(Annexure P-3) against tiie petNoner caancA be sustained. 6. Rule 9 ofthe Chhattisgaili Civil Services (Classifieation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (henceforth 'the Rules of 1966*) provides that a Govemment Servant may be placed under saspension where a case against him in respect of any criminal offeiKe is under mvestigation, inquiry or frial. The relevaat p-ovisaons @f Rute 9 of the Rules of 1966 read as under:- "9.(1) The appointing autfawity <MT any autiiority to which it m siabordinate or the disciplinary autiiority or aay ofher authority empowered in Ifaat behalf by Ihe Gown»r by general or special wder, may place a GovCTianeat servant under suspension- (a)where a disciplinary proceediag agmnst han iss contemplsted or is pending, or (b)v^iere a case agMnst him in Fespect of any cruianal offence is wider investig^tion, iaquuyortrial : Provided fcat a Govemiraent Seryairt ^isll mvariably te placed under suspesision when a challaii for a criminal offence involving corruption or ofher moral tarpitude is filed against him: Provided furfher fhat ^iere ^e order of suspension is made by an aufcority lowa- Ifaan tte appourting autfiority, such aulfaority shall forfliwilh repwt to tiie appointing authority tfae cu-oumstances in whidi fhe order was made." 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in P.LShah vs. Umon ef In^tt and anothei^, held as under:- "6.An order of suspaision is not an wdea' imposing puni^unent on a person found to be guilty. It is an order made agaimt him before he is found guilty to eaisure smooth disposal oflfae proceedings initiated against him." 11989 (l)SCC 546 ^^^..^ ^ ^ 8. The purpose ofsuspension in Ihe present ease is already over and Ae petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal trisl. Thiis, Ifae petitioner cannot be placed under suspenaon eontinuoiEsly uiwier provisions ofRule 9 ofthe Rules of 1966. 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The impugned suspension order dated 07.02.2003 (Annexure P-3) is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to consequential benefits flowing from this order. No order as to costs. —- __—_ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu ^^ y