Heard.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved not only by the order of suspension as originally passed on 31.01.2017, the grievance is aggravated on account of long continuation of suspension.

2. While granting further time of two weeks on 27.10.2017, it was made clear that no further time would be granted. The case was, however, adjourned on 17.11.2017 at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. Even now, reply of the State is not filed.

3. However, taking into consideration the nature of relief sought in this petition and the settled legal position, I deem it expedient to finally dispose off the matter.

4. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 31.01.2017 on a host of charges relating to irregularity in performance of duties. The allegations pertain to irregularity in performance of duties and functions. After suspension, charge-sheet followed on 10.03.2017.

5. Coincidently, the petitioner also preferred an appeal against the suspension order on the same day i.e. on 10.03.2017 before the Appellate Authority, invoking its statutory remedy of appeal under Rule 23 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The appeal of the petitioner has remained undecided and the petitioner has continued all along under suspension for the last more than 8 months.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that till date, there is no substantial progress in the departmental enquiry and after issuance of charge-sheet, he has not been noticed of any further stage of proceeding in the departmental enquiry.

7. Even though, an order of suspension at its inception may be justified, its continuation must be necessitated by administrative exigency and public interest. In the case of State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, AIR 1994 SC 2296, the Supreme Court held that the object and purpose of suspension is not to punish an employee but only to facilitate departmental enquiry. It was observed thus :

“12. It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and 5 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483: 1994 SCC (L&S) 67: (1993) 25 ATC commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of