Madhya Pradesh High Court
O.P. Asthana vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 July, 2022
Author: Maninder S Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
ON THE 12th OF JULY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 12860 of 2022
Between:-
O.P. ASTHANA S/O SHRI NAGENDRA PRASAD
ASTHANA , AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: WORKING AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER (CURRENTLY SUSPENDED) JANPAD
PANCHAYAT GUNNOR DISTRICT PANNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANVESH SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
MANTRALAYA, VALLAB BHAWAN BHOPAL
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER SAGAR
SAGAR DIVISION DISTRICT SAGAR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE COLLECTOR PANNA DISTRICT PANNA M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAMOD PANDEY, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
THE RESPONDENT/STATE )
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
SAN
The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 31-05-2022
Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE
Date: 2022.07.15 10:26:07 IST
contained in ( Annexure P/8), by which, the petitioner has been placed under
suspension in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 9 of Madhya Pradesh
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Rules of 1966").
The petitioner contends that the petitioner's overall record has been
outstanding during his service career and his unblemished service career has
also been appreciated from all the corners yet, the petitioner was placed under
suspension in the year 2020. The said order of suspension was revoked vide
order dated 18-06-2020, which was passed by the Commissioner, Division
Sagar and while revoking the order of suspension, it was observed by the
Commissioner, Division Sagar that without reasonable cause, the petitioner was
being placed under suspension and accordingly, the revoked the order of
suspension.
The petitioner has now again been placed under suspension vide order
dated 31-5-2022 and a perusal of order shows that the allegations are vague and
mis-conceived and thus, submits that if the charges are vague, the order of
suspension deserves to be quashed inasmuch as, the order of suspension is not
treated as punishment and therefore, submits that the allegations should be
specific and thus, has placed reliance on order of this Court in WP No.
14176/2017 ( Smt. Nahid Jahan Vs. State of M.P. and others ).
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
impugned order of suspension is appealable under Rule 23 of the Rules, 1966
and as per Rule 24, the appeal lies to His Excellency, the Governor,
Government of Madhya Pradesh. The respondents thus, submits that since
there is an alternate efficacious remedy, the petitioner can avail the same, by
Signature Not Verified
SAN
filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE
Date: 2022.07.15 10:26:07 IST
Having considered the rival submissions, the petitioner though does not
dispute that the order is appealable but, has submitted that since the order
impugned is vague therefore, the alternate remedy is no bar and Writ Petition
can be entertained in view of Judgment in the case of Smt. Nahid Jahan.
The facts in the case of Smt. Nahid Jahan are distinguishable inasmuch
as, in the said case, the petitioner was placed under suspension, as there was
allegation that the details of the Teacher in Educational Portal were not updated
properly. It was argued that the alleged mistake was clerical as well as minor
and did not fall within the ambit of mis-conduct and thus, this Court in
paragraph-15 held that there were no allegations against the petitioner regarding
negligence or irreparable loss or damage to the Department and it was further
observed that the alleged negligence was not irreparable so as to necessitate the
order of suspension. However, in the present case, the allegation against the
petitioner is that he is guilty of irregularities in implementation of Schemes and
not following the directives of the Department. Apart from this, the order of
suspension also alleges that the petitioner is guilty of negligence in performance
of his official duties and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, an
order under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1966 is passed in contemplation of disciplinary
proceedings and thus, at the stage of placing an employee under suspension,
the elaborate reasons are not required to be assigned in the order of suspension.
Admittedly,the impugned order on the face of it reveals that the
allegations of irregularities have been levelled against the petitioner in
implementation of the Schemes, thus, the order, relied upon by the counsel for
the petitioner, in the case of Smt. Nahid Jahan is distinguishable.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage, as
Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE
the order impugned is appealable under Rule 23 of Rules of 1966. Therefore, in
Date: 2022.07.15 10:26:07 IST
view of availability of alternate efficacious remedy, the interference is declined.
If the petitioner prefers an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the
same be considered and decided, without being influenced by any observation
made in this order, by passing a speaking and reasoned order within 60 days
from the date of filing of the appeal.
The petition stands disposed off.
(MANINDER S BHATTI)
JUDGE
PG
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE
Date: 2022.07.15 10:26:07 IST
