Amita Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2439 MP

                             1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       WP-19744-2020
         Amita Singh Tomar Vs. State of MP and others

                    Through Video Conferencing

Gwalior, Dated : 16-06-2021

      Shri Himanshu Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Ajay Raghuvanshi, Counsel for the respondents/State.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed seeking the following relief:-

"(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed.

(ii) That, the order dt. 26-12-2019 (Annexure P/1) may kindly be revoked and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service on the post of Tahsildar.

(iii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to conclude the D.E pending against the petitioner within a time limit as deem fit by the Hon'ble Court.

(iv) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded."

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner has been placed under suspension and a departmental

enquiry has been initiated on the allegation that she had uploaded

objectionable post on the social media. It is submitted by the counsel

for the petitioner that the petitioner is working on the post of

Tahsildar. By order dated 26.12.2019, she has been placed under

suspension under Rule 9(1) of Madhya Pradesh (Classification,

Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. A departmental enquiry was also

initiated against her. Although the enquiry has come to an end, but

the final order has not been passed. The petitioner is under

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-19744-2020 Amita Singh Tomar Vs. State of MP and others

suspension for the last more than one and half years. The Supreme

Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India

and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 has directed the

disciplinary authority to review the suspension order periodically but

that has not been done.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary

(Supra) has held as under:-

"21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in Page 17 17 any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-19744-2020 Amita Singh Tomar Vs. State of MP and others

in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."

Thus, the respondents were under obligation to review the

necessity of suspension and were required to pass a written order in

that regard. According to the petitioner, the enquiry has already been

completed. However, the final order in the departmental enquiry has

not been passed.

Under these circumstances, in the light of the judgment passed

by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary

(Supra), the respondents are directed to review the necessity to

continue the suspension order of the petitioner, within a period of one

month from the date of submitting certified copy of this order. If the

respondents are of the view that the suspension order is not liable to

be revoked, then they shall pass a speaking order for extending the

period of suspension. The petitioner is directed to submit certified

copy of this order along with the representation.

With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed

of.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2021.06.23 10:36:47 +05'30'