Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 286 (CHH)

PHILOMINA EKKA v. STATE OF C. G.

2006-05-05

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2006
ORAL ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri S.K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The present petition impugns the suspension order dated 21.5.2004 (Annexure P/1). 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that at the relevant time, the petitioner was employed as Child Development and Project Officer at Navagarh District - Janjgir Champa. The impugned order dated 21.5.2004, placing the petitioner under suspension was passed under Rule 9 (I)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 on the ground that the petitioner as Project Officer in the Integrated Child Welfare Project, Navagarh has committed irregularity in "Ready-to-Eat", nutritious food scheme. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned suspension order dated 21.5.2004 and further a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits etc. 3. Shri Ashish Shrivastava with Smt. Smita Ghai, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner submits that the suspension order has been passed with malafide motive as the action has been taken against the petitioner by imposing minor penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect on 18.5.2004 for the same charges. It is further submitted that the respondent NO.3 being District Programme Officer of the Department of Mahila & Bal Vikas, Janjgir Champa, has animosity against the petitioner and accordingly she caused to get this impugned order issued. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 4. Smt. Anju Ahnuja, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1' and 2 submits that the impugned suspension order was not passed at the behest of any officer. The order was passed keeping in view the irregularity committed by the petitioner in "Ready-to-Eat" nutritious food scheme. It is further submitted that since the charge sheet has been issued and the enquiry is pending consideration, at this stage this Court should not interfere with the impugned order. 5. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, while adopting the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2, submits that the allegations made against the respondent No.3 are baseless, frivolous and without any substance. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 was on maternity leave during the period when the alleged irregularities were committed by the petitioner. 6. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 was on maternity leave during the period when the alleged irregularities were committed by the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, when the charge sheet has been issued and the departmental enquiry is pending consideration, it is not necessary to go into the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties and further, it is not necessary to go into the legality/validity of the impugned order at this stage. 7. It is well settled principle of law that the suspension is temporary and it does not involve punishment with civil consequences. Suspension means a temporary deprivation of the functions not amounting to any reduction of his rank or his status. The employee under suspension continues to be a Government 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 tampering with on records. At this stage it is not necessary to go into the charges levelled against the petitioner because it may prejudice the case of the parties in the pending departmental enquiry. 8. Further, in view of the fact that the petitioner is placed under suspension by order dated 21.5.2004, it is necessary that the enquiry officer should complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months. 9. For the reasons stated above this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.