H K Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1603 MP

                                                                        1
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                                   BEFORE
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                                            ON THE 4th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                                                         WRIT PETITION No. 834 of 2022

                                             Between:-
                                             H K SHRIVASTAVA S/O SHRI HORI LAL , AGED
                                             ABOUT    61   YEARS, OCCUPATION: SUB
                                             ENGINEER WARD NO 8 NAWANKUR WALI
                                             GALI   GANJABASODA     DISTT.   VIDISHA
                                             (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....PETITIONER
                                             (BY SHRI T.K.KHADKA, ADVOCATE)

                                             AND

                                    1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
                                             SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND    RURAL
                                             DEVELOPMENT DEPT. VALLABH BHAWAN
                                             BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                    2.       ADDITIONAL     CHIEF    SECRETTARY
                                             PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
                                             DEPARTM ENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                             (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                    3.       CHIEF ENGINEER RURAL ENGINEERING
                                             SERVICE VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                             (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                    4.       DEPUTY SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND
                                             RURAL    DEVELOPMENT    DEPARTMENT
                                             BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                    5.       COLLECTOR V I D I S H A DISTRIT        VIDISHA
                                             (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
                                             (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA, PANEL LAWYER)
                                                          (Heard through Video Conferencing)
                                           This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                                    following:
                                                                        ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

"7.1 That, by issuance of a writ in the nature of Signature Not Verified SAN Certiorari this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2022.02.05 12:07:52 IST

the impugned suspension order dated 12.3.2021 (Annexure P-1) in its entirety.

7.2. That, by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings before the superannuation is made of the

petitioner, in the interest of justice.

7.3. That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be awarded together with awarding the cost of these proceedings."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that owing to some irregularities in discharging duties in respect of Mukhya Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, Kurwai Bamora Raod to Madhiya, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 12.3.2021 (Annexure P-1). No order has been passed by the respondents/authorities taking a final decision in the matter regarding the issuance of charge-sheet or conducting departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Even the suspension order has not been reviewed/revoked.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India and another as reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, wherein it has been observed that suspension cannot be continued for an inordinate period. In such circumstances, keeping the petitioner under suspension for indefinite period, is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents/authorities to pass the final order with respect to suspension of the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submitted that the petitioner is having a remedy of appeal before the appellate authority. However, he submitted that in case any representation, which may have been Signature Not Verified SAN filed by the petitioner, is pending, the same shall be considered and decided Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2022.02.05 12:07:52 IST

expeditiously.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstance of the case as well as the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra), the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the respondents/competent authority within a period of seven days from today. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the competent authority is directed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The order passed may be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE TG /-

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2022.02.05 12:07:52 IST