Rajeev Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2767 MP

                                   1                              WP-10201-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   WP-10201-2021
            (RAJEEV SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

1
Gwalior, Dated : 28-06-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.
      Shri Alok Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.

Shri Ayush Chorasiya, learned counsel for respondent No.5. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee through

Registered A.D. mode within seven working days, failing which, the petition shall stand dismissed automatically further reference to the Court.

Heard on question on interim relief.

Counsel for the petitioner is pointed out that the earlier termination order dated 26.10.2016 has been modified by Appellate Authority and the punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect and recovery is directed against the petitioner. The aforesaid order has attained finality, the Appellate Authority has passed the modified order, cannot be initiated for the same set of charges. Thereafter, the Collector has passed the impugned

order, whereby, pointing out the fact that the order passed on earlier occasion by the disciplinary authorities the services of the petitioner was terminated was a justified order and the Appellate Authority has not considered the case on merits, therefore, again a suspension order has been issued to the petitioner for fresh enquiry into the matter. It is pointed out that the order impugned is beyond the permissible limits of six months, therefore, the suspension order cannot be passed and fresh departmental enquiry cannot be initiated from the set of charges, for which he has already been punished in the year 2016. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and ors. Vs. Vikrambhai Maganbhai Chaudhari reported in 2011 (7) SCC 321 and in the case of Kanailal Bera Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2007 2 WP-10201-2021 (11) SCC 517 and has argued that the orders cannot be reviewed beyond the period of six months as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has submitted that the petition is not maintainable for want of alternative remedy as it is only a suspension order and petition against the suspension order is not maintainable. Even the charge sheet has not been issued till date, therefore, he

is having a remedy to assail the order before the Appellate Authority. No justification with respect to the legal issue which have been raised by the petitioner is answered by the respondent No. 5 in the reply.

In such circumstances, effect and operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

List the case in the week commencing of 26.07.2021. Meanwhile, respondent is directed to file reply in the matter. Certified copy as per rules.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

(LJ*)

LOKENDRA JAIN 2021.06.29 11:16:41 -07'00'