ORDER
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
7.1. Quash the order No. F-7-26/2001/9/17, dated 10-9-2007, passed by Under Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Health and Family Welfare (Annexure P-6).
7.2. Direct the respondents to pay full back wages due to the petitioner treating the period to be period-in-service.
7.3. Grant cost.
7.4. Any other relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner working as Assistant Grade II, in the office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Kabirdham, was suspended during the pendency of the trial for having committed offence punishable under Sections 7,13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) on 16-7-2002 (Annexure P-l), which was approved by the State Government on 17-7-2002. The petitioner was acquitted in the trial on 30-6-2006 by order passed by the Special Judge under the Act, 1988 (Annexure P-2). The Collector, Kabirdham, revoked the suspension on 24-1-2007 (Annexure P-3) and the petitioner joined the office accordingly. The petitioner was thereafter again suspended on 10-9-2007 (Annexure P-6) on the ground that the appeal against the order dated 30-6-2006 passed by the Special Judge, acquitting the petitioner has been filed and is pending consideration in the High Court. The issue involved in this case is as to whether the employee is liable to be suspended during pendency of the criminal appeal.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this very issue has been considered by this High Court in Dhaneshwar Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. 2007(1) M.P.H.T. 54 (CG), where the relevant Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘Rules, 1966’) was in issue. Rule 9 of the Rules, 1966 provides for suspension where a case against the employee in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. Since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal trial, suspension is not necessary to keep away the employee from the work in order to ensure smooth disposal of investigation or trial. In the case of appeal, there is no question of any fresh evidence or deposition, which can be influenced by the petitioner or further records can be tampered with.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that the fact and issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment and order passed in the case of Dhaneshwar Soni (supra). The Supreme Court in P.L. Shah v. Union of India and Anr. , held as under:
6. An order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guilty. It is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him.
5. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned suspension order dated 10-9-2007 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and the petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits flowing from this order. No order as to costs.