Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satya Narayan Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 September, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
---1---
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.A. No.801/2021
(Satya Narayan Dubey Vs .State of M.P. and another)
Jabalpur Dated : 15.9.2021
Heard through Video Conferencing
Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh
Maindiretta, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner.
Shri Purushaindra Kuarav, learned Advocate General with Shri
Pushpendra Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner under
Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchaha Nayaylaya (Khand Nyayapeeth
Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the judgment of learned Single Judge
dated 27.8.2021 in W.P. No.15518/2021 by which the writ petition filed by
the appellant challenging the order of his suspension has been dismissed.
2. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has observed
that on the basis of material available on record, it cannot be said that there
was total absence of material against the petitioner. A discreet enquiry was
conducted and prima facie material was found against the appellant and
thereafter the impugned order was passed. However, the appellant would
have remedy of challenging the order of suspension by filing an appeal
under Rule 23 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1966. Even though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant has argued the matter at length and cited the judgments of
Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and others Vs. J. Ahmed
reported in (1979) 2 SCC 286 and Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Govt. of
---2---
NCT of Delhi and others reported in (2007) 4 SCC 566 and also taken the
Court through all the documents, but on perusal of the cited judgments,
which in our view are distinguishable, documents and also the material
which has been placed before us by the learned Advocate General, we are
not inclined to delve into the controversy whether or not the allegations
contained in such material against the appellant constitute misconduct, least
it may prejudice the appellant. This may be a matter of enquiry.
3. Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel, however, submitted that the
impugned order does not specifically mention whether the order of
suspension is being passed in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings.
4. Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, learned Advocate General, at this stage,
submitted that third para of the order itself mentions about the misconduct of
the appellant therefore obviously contemplation of the disciplinary
proceedings is implicit therein.
5. Having regard to the rival submissions but without entering into the
merits of the case, we dispose of this appeal setting the appellant at liberty to
file an appeal against the order of suspension before the Appellate Authority
within seven days from today. The Appellate Authority shall after providing
opportunity of hearing to the appellant decide the appeal within a period of
30 days from the date of its filing.
6. We however, make it clear that the observations made by the learned
Single Judge in Paragraph No.7 of the impugned judgment shall be taken
only as tentative for the purpose of deciding the writ petition and shall not
any manner affect or govern the discretion of the Appellate Authority. It is
also clarified that nothing observed in this order by us would be read against
---3---
the appellant/writ petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the appellant
has argued that the material which the respondents are using against the
appellant has not been provided to him. All such material, if and when used,
against the appellant/petitioner, shall be provided to him on an application
made in this behalf by the appellant/petitioner.
7. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal is disposed of.
(Mohammad Rafiq) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge
Anchal
Digitally signed by
ANCHAL KHARE
Date: 2021.09.16
16:25:23 +05'30'
