Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar Santoshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 December, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
T H E H I G H C O U R T O F MAD H YA PRAD E S H
B E N C H AT I N D O R E
(S.B.: HON'BLE Mr JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
Writ Petition No.7619/2021
PETITIONER : Ashok Kumar Santoshi,
S/o Late Shri R.P. Santoshi,
aged about 61 years,
occupation-Service,
R/o 562, Sai Kripa Colony, Indore, M.P.
Versus
RESPONDENTS 1. State of M.P.
through the Principal Secretary,
Panchayat and Rural Development
Department, Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal, M.P.
2. Engineer In Chief, Rural Engineering
Service (M.P.) B Wing, Second
Floor, Vindyachal Bhawan,
Bhopal, M.P.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Aviral Vikas Khare, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Date: 14.12.2021/ Indore:
With the consent of the parties heard finally.
Initially, the petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved
note sheet dated 16.03.2021 (Annexure P/1) written by Minister,
Panchayat and Rural Development Department directing high-level
enquiry against the petitioner by placing him under suspension.
After filing of this petition, vide order dated 27.03.2021, the
- : 2 :-
petitioner has been placed under suspension, hence by way of amendment,
the petitioner has also assailed the validity of the order of suspension.
The facts of the case in short are as under :-
1. At the time of filing of the petition, the petitioner was holding the
substantial post of Superintending Engineer in Rural Engineering Service
( in short "R.E.S.") Indore Division. That Lokayukta enquiry was pending
against Sajjan Singh Chouhan, the then Executive Engineer, Rural
Engineering Service. Vide order dated 23.10.2019, the petitioner was
directed to conduct the spot inspection of 19 stop/Chek Dam and submit a
pointwise reply before the Lokayukta.
2. One Chhaganlal Rathor R/o Pansemal, District Barwani has
submitted a complaint against petitioner alleging incomplete work of
construction of Stadium and hostel during his posting as Superintending
Engineer of RES. On the basis of said complaint, vide impugned note
sheet dated 16.03.2021, the Minister of Panchayat and Rural
Development Department has directed Engineer-in- chief to conduct a
high-level enquiry and obtained a report on or before 22.03.2021 as
petitioner is going to retire on 31.03.2021 and also directed to suspend the
petitioner. In compliance of the aforesaid note sheet, vide letter dated
16.03.2021, the Engineer-in-Chief has directed Chief Engineer, R.E.S,
Indore to submit a report on or before 19.03.2021 by placing the petitioner
under suspension. The Chief Engineer, vide letter dated 19.03.2021 has
directed Chhagan Lal Rathore to appear on 22.03.2021. Chief Engineer
has conducted an enquiry in respect of allegations levelled against the
petitioner and submitted a report dated 22.03.2021 in favour of the
petitioner. The CE has opined that allegations of misappropriation of the
fund by the petitioner in collusion with the contractor are false and there
are no irregularities in the construction of the stadium and hostel. Even it
has also been held that there is no such person in the name of Chhagan
Lal Ratore in Vill. Pansemal and recommended for the closing of the
complaint. In apprehension of suspension, the petitioner has filed a
present petition before this Court on 27.03.2021.
- : 3 :-
3. Vide order dated 27.03.2021, the Deputy Secretary has placed the
petitioner under suspension under Rule 9(1) (a) of the M.P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short "CCA Rules")
just three days before his retirement on 31.03.2021. Vide order dated
31.03.2021, the petitioner has been retired from services in the capacity of
Superintending Engineer (suspended). By way of application for
amendment, the petitioner has brought aforesaid two orders on record and
prayed for quashment of the order of suspension.
4. The State Government has filed the short reply by submitting that
the petitioner was posted as Superintending Engineer and he has
committed financial irregularities in the construction of the stadium in the
year 2016-2017 at Pansemal and Thikri District Barwani. He has also
committed financial irregularities in the construction of the hostel at
Pansemal District Barwani by revising D.P.R. with the hand in gloves of
the Contractor which has resulted in the increase of the total cost of the
project. After receipt of the complaint, the petitioner was rightly
suspended. The concerned Minister took cognizance of the complainant of
local resident and enquiry was proposed with the condition that it should
be completed before 22.03.2021 i.e. before his retirement. It is submitted
the Minster of the department is certainly empowered to recommend
departmental enquiry in cases of alleged misconduct of Government
employees. In support of his contention, the learned Government
Advocate has relied on the judgment passed by Division Bench of this
High Court in the matter of Smt. Shanti Bavaria Vs. State of M.P. &
others (W.A. No.58/2017 decided on 10.10.2017). It is submitted that
under Rule 23 of CCA Rules, the petitioner is having remedy of appeal
against the order of suspension, hence, the petition is not maintainable. It
is further submitted that since the petitioner has retired on 31.03.2021,
therefore, in compliance of Rules 64 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1976 the competent authority the provisional pension and other
consequential emoluments during the pendency of the enquiry vide order
dated 07.04.2021, 09.07.2021, 02.08.2021, 11.08.2021 and 31.08.2021.
- : 4 :-
The respondents have filed a reply on 17.09.2021. Apart from this
allegation, nothing adverse in respect of his past service has been
mentioned against the petitioner in this reply.
5. Shri Khare learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now more
than 8 months have been passed after the retirement of the petitioner but
till today no charge-sheet has been issued to him. Despite repeated
directions by this Court, no instructions were obtained in order to
victimize the petitioner. This court has said that return be filed positively
on or before 03.09.2021 failing which the presence of Engineer-In-Chief,
R.E.S. Bhopal shall be ordered even then on 09.09.2021 a statement was
made that charge-sheet has not been issued to the petitioner. This Court
has observed that in case the reply is not filed by the next date of hearing,
the matter shall be heard on the basis of material available on record, then
the State Government filed a reply. It is further submitted that the
concerned Minister has no jurisdiction to direct for enquiry on an
anonymous complaint by suspending the petitioner because he is going to
retire on 31.03.2021. The enquiry was conducted by Chief Engineer and
none of the charges was found proved. Even no person in the name of
Chhagan Lal Rathore was found in the vill. Pansemal. The petitioner has
been awarded the Subhash Chandra Excellence Award for his work in the
year 2011-12. He has an unblemished carrier, but he was retired as a
suspended officer which is nothing but a great humiliation of an honest
class one officer, this is causing stigma on his 30 years of service carrier.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel that since there is no
material against the petitioner, therefore the respondents could not serve
the charge-sheet to him till date. Hence, the order of suspension is liable
to be set aside with cost.
6. Shri Sen, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have failed
to give reply as to why the State Government has not served charge-sheet
to petitioner after the expiry of 9 months. Although he has tried his level
best to justify the impugned action of the respondents but failed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
- : 5 :-
7. The competent authority is having the power to suspend the
Government Employee/officer under Rule 9(1) (a) of the M.P. Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 in
contemplation of any departmental enquiry. It is mandatory to mention in
the suspension order that he is being suspended in contemplation of
departmental enquiry. In the suspension order, it is mentioned that due to
the irregularities committed by the petitioner in the construction of the
stadium, he is being suspended but nothing is mentioned that an enquiry is
contemplated against him. Before issuing the suspension order, the Chief
Engineer has conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report that
none of the charges is found proved in respect of the construction of
stadium and hostel or any financial loss to the State Government. It is held
that the extension of time, revision of the project was done as per clause
2.13 of the Madhya Pradesh Work Manual. Even the complainant did not
appear despite notice, and it came on record that no such person of this
name is residing at village Pansemal, therefore, it appears that the
complaint made in the name of Chhagan Lal Rathore is a concocted
complaint, sent to the Minister only to take unwarranted action against the
petitioner. The State Government has not denied the note-sheet written by
the concerned Minister. Although in the note-sheet, a direction has been
given to conduct a high-level enquiry by placing the petitioner under
suspension the respondents instead of suspending him got conducted the
enquiry. When the report has been received in favour of the petitioner then
there was no justification for the State Govt. to issue a suspension order.
The petitioner has wrongly been placed under suspension 3 days before
his superannuation from service and after the expiry of 9 months, the
Government is not in a position to issue a charge-sheet him. Awaiting the
charge sheet the respondents have withheld gratuity, and 10% of the
pension and other benefits. Hence the impugned notice and order of
suspension is liable to be set aside.
8. The petitioner, who has served State Government for more than 30
years with an unblemished record, has been retired as suspended
- : 6 :-
Superintending Engineer. This is causing blot on his unblemished career,
he had the right to retire as Superintending Engineer with full dignity but
by placing him under suspension on the anonymous false complaint, the
substantial damage has been caused by the respondents. The loss of
reputation of the petitioner at the time of retirement cannot be repaired.
The entire action of the State Government is nothing but absolute misuse
of the power, arbitrary, malafide for which heavy cost is liable to be
imposed. The petitioner being a Class-I Officer has been retired as a
suspended Officer, by the respondents hence, the cost of Rs. 5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakh Only) is hereby imposed on the State Government.
The cost shall be paid to the petitioner along with all his gratuity amount
and all retiral dues forthwith .
9. Since, it has come in the report given by the Chief Engineer that
there is no such person in the name of Chhagan Lal Rathore in Village
Pansemal, therefore, the matter is handed over to the police to investigate
as to who did this mischief with the petitioner in the fake name of
Chhagan Lal Rathore, which has resulted into the issuance of note-sheet
by concerned Minister and suspension of the petitioner. The police are
directed to register an FIR and investigate the matter.
In view of the above, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed,
the impugned note sheet and suspension order dated 27.03.2021 is hereby
quashed.
A copy of this order be sent to Police Commissioner, Indore for
necessary action.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
praveen
PRAVEEN NAYAK
2021.12.16 16:48:01
+05'30'
