Munna Singh Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2195 MP

                                                                       1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                                    BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                                             ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                                                         WRIT PETITION No. 29120 of 2021

                                            Between:-
                                            MUNNA SINGH PATEL S/O MOUJI SINGH THAKUR
                                            ,  AGED    ABOUT  56   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                            PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK VILLAGE MALAKHURD,
                                            DIST.JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                                            (SMT.SANGEETA NAIDU, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                                            PETITIONER)

                                            AND

                                   1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                            PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION
                                            DEPTT. VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                            PRADESH)

                                   2.       DISTRICT  EDUCATION  OFFICER    SCHOOL
                                            EDUCATION   DEPARTMENT DISTT. JABALPUR
                                            (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   3.       BLOCK      EDUCATION   OFFICER   SCHOOL
                                            EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PATAN TEH. PATAN
                                            DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                                            (SHRI PRASHANT MISHRA, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
                                            RESPONDENT/STATE)

                                         This petition coming on for admission on this day, the court passed the
                                   following:
                                                                        ORDER

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

"i. Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and other appropriate writs, orders or directions by quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 8.3.2021, annexure P/1, and impugned suspension order dated 8.3.2021, annexure P/2, passed by the respondent no.2 in the interest of justice.

Signature Not Verified SAN ii) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue writ Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.02.18 11:39:18 IST of mandamus by directing the respondents to revoke the suspension

order of the petitioner along with all the consequential benefits.

iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner along with the cost of the petition".

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that owing to some criminal case registered against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 8.3.2021, annexure P/2, and charge-sheet was also issued on 8.3.2021 vide annexure P/1. It is submitted that the petitioner has been enlarged on anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that even after lapse of around one year, 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.

O n 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 filed by the petitioner, is pending, the same shall be considered and decided 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 Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.02.18 11:39:18 IST of the case.

With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE HS

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.02.18 11:39:18 IST