Ramprakash Gunkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5520 MP

                HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
              1                                  W.P.No. 7804/2022
           (Ramprakash Gunkar V/s State of M.P. & Ors.)

Gwalior Bench:
Dated -18/04/2022
     Shri Arun Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri Devendra Chaubey, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents/State.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:-

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

(ii)That, the order dated 16/7/2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed.

(iii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for revocation of suspension order in the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary and in the light of the order Annexure P/3.

(iv) (iii)That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."

It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that he has been placed under suspension vide order dated 16/7/2020. It is submitted that more than twenty months time has been passed away and therefore, as per dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, the aspect of limit on suspension order is required to be HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

(Ramprakash Gunkar V/s State of M.P. & Ors.)

considered. Relevant extract of the aforesaid decision is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference;

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 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 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

(Ramprakash Gunkar V/s State of M.P. & Ors.)

justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.

22.So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the Appellant has now been served with a Charge-sheet, and, therefore, these directions may not be relevant to him any longer. However, if the Appellant is so advised he may challenge his continued suspension in any manner known to law, and this action of the Respondents will be subject to judicial review.

It is further alleged that the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation vide Annexure P/2, but the same has not been decided till date and the respondents/authorities are sitting tight over the matter. Thus, he has prayed that a time bound direction be given to the respondents authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the representation preferred by the petitioner shall be decided as expeditiously as possible.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to resubmit a fresh detailed representation alleging all his grievances within a period of ten working days from today and in turn, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

(Ramprakash Gunkar V/s State of M.P. & Ors.)

respondentauthorities are directed to decide the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such representation along with certified copy of this order and shall pass a self contained speaking order. The outcome of the same shall be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.

Needless to say that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.

(Anand Pathak) Judge jps/-

JAI PRAKASH Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fc

SOLANKI bb05b9522a, pseudonym=560BC50AD082B9BE54EE290EC8CB2193780D8357, serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072A2D8C01433EBD48AE4F 609F108CA8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2022.04.19 09:51:55 +05'30'