Purshottam Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 412 MP

                           1

           The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                     WP-4205-2021
       (PURSHOTTAM JATAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)




Gwalior, Dated : 02.03.2021

      Smt. Sangeeta Pachori, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri A.K. Nirankari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the State.

      Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

      The petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:

         "7.1. That, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
         Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order annexure
         P/1 & P/2 by which the petitioner has been placed under
         suspension for such long period.

         7.2 That, it may be further directed by this Hon'ble Court
         for the issuance of appropriate writ for directing the
         respondents for concluding the trial of the petitioner

concerning the crime number 121/2017 to be concluded within a stipulated period of 6 months so as to help the petitioner join back his services which the respondent authorities are till date not allowing to happen and in such circumstances the petitioner is being penalized mentally socially emotionally and monetarily in the interest of justice.

7.3. That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.

7.4. That, costs of the petition may kindly be awarded."

It is pointed out that owing to some criminal case has been

registered against the petitioner, he has been placed under suspension

vide order dated 18.12.2017 (Annexure P/1) and thereafter, the

suspension order was revised on 17.01.2018. Thereafter, no order has

been passed by the respondent-authority taking a final decision in the

matter by issuance of charge-sheet or departmental enquiry against the

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh WP-4205-2021 (PURSHOTTAM JATAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

petitioner. No order with respect of revocation of suspension order is

being filed by the authorities. She has relied upon a judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vs. Union of

India through its Secretary and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC

291, wherein it is observed that the suspension cannot be continued an

inordinate delay. In such circumstances, the action of the respondents

is totally unwarranted. Counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction

to the respondent-authorities to pass a final order with respect to the

suspension of the petitioner.

Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that even

if the suspension order is pending, he is having remedy to prefer an

appeal to the appellate authority. As far as the passing of subsequent

order of the authority is concerned, he fairly submits that in case any

representation is being preferred by the petitioner, the same will be

considered and decided expeditiously.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and

looking to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

aforesaid case, this Court deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to

prefer a representation to the respondent/competent authority within a

period of seven days from today. In case such representation is

preferred, the same is directed to be considered and decided within a

period of one month. This Court has not passed any orders on merit of

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh WP-4205-2021 (PURSHOTTAM JATAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

the case.

                Petition is disposed of accordingly.1



                                                   (Vishal Mishra)
mani                                                   Judge


 SUBASRI MANI
 2021.03.02
 17:54:08
 -08'00'