Suresh Rajpoot vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6707 MP

                                            1

                                                                  W.P. No.10410-2022



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                 AT JABALPUR
                                BEFORE
         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                         ON THE 5th OF MAY, 2022


                      WRIT PETITION No. 10410 of 2022

  Between:-
  SURESH RAJPOOT S/O SHRI NARAYAN DAS
  RAJPOOT, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
  OCCUPATION: PANCHAYAT SECRETARY
  GRAM PANCHAYAT SUJANPURA, JANPAD
  PANCHAYAT PRITHWIPUR DISTT. NIWARI
  (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                 .....PETITIONER
  (BY SHRI V.D.S. CHAUHAN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
  PETITIONER)

  AND

   STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
   SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT DEPARTMENT
1.
   VALLABH BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

   COMMISSIONER    (REVENUE)            DIVISION
2. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

   COLLECTOR DISTRICT NIWARI (MADHYA
3. PRADESH)

   JILA PANCHAYAT TIKAMGARH THROUGH
   ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JILA
4. PANCHAYAT    TIKAMGARH,    DISTRICT
   TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

   JANPAD      PANCHAYAT     PRITHWIPUR
   THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
5.
   JANPAD      PANCHAYAT     PRITHWIPUR
   DISTRICT NIWARI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
  (BY SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO, LEARNED GOVERNMENT
  ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS/STATE)
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 by

the petitioner seeking following relief:-

"7.1 That, the Hon'ble Court kindly may be kind enough to

W.P. No.10410-2022

quash the impugned order dated 29/04/22 (Ann-P/3) passed by the respondents, in the interest of justice. 7.2 That, the Hon'ble court kindly may be kind enough to call for records of this concerning petition. 7.3 That, any other relief, order or direction deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted together with the cost of the petition."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who was

working as Panchayat Secretary has been suspended vide order dated 29.04.2021

(Annexure P/3) owing to some allegations levelled against him. Counsel further

submitted that the order of suspension could not be passed by the incompetent

authority that too mechanically or as the matter of routine. He further submitted

that availability of alternative remedy is not a bar in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Petitioner was posted as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Sujanpura,

Janpad Panchayat Prithwipur, District Niwari whereas the order of suspension has

been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Tikamgarh. As such,

the same is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance on the judgment of the 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.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the

prayer and submitted that District Niwari has been carved out of District

Tikamgarh and the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Tikamgarh is the

W.P. No.10410-2022

competent authority to pass the orders of District Niwari. As such, the petitioner

may either be relegated to avail the alternative remedy or the petition may not be

entertained. However, he submitted that in case any representation, which may

has been filed by the petitioner, is pending, the same shall be considered and

decided expeditiously.

4. 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, preferably within a

period of four weeks, in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking

order. The order passed may be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

5. 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 vc Digitally signed by VARSHA CHOURASIYA Date: 2022.05.06 17:32:10 +05'30'