H.S.Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6865 MP

                                                                         1
                                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                                      BEFORE
                                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                                                                 ON THE 7th OF MAY, 2022

                                                         WRIT PETITION No. 10676 of 2022

                                              Between:-
                                              H.S.CHOUHAN S/O SHRI GOVIND SINGH
                                              CHOUHAN , AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
                                              OCCUPATION:    DISTRICT    PROJECT
                                              COORDINATOR JILA SHIKSHA KENDRA,
                                              TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                                              (BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA YADAV, ADVOCATE)

                                              AND

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

                                      2.      DIRECTOR RAJYA SHIKSHA KENDRA B-WING
                                              PUSTAK BHAWAN JAIL ROAD ARERA HILLS
                                              BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                      3.      THE   COMMISSIONER      SAGAR   DIVISION
                                              DISTRICT SAGAR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                      4.      THE COLLECTOR NIVARI DISTRICT NIVARI
                                              M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                                              (BY SHRI PIYUSH JAIN, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                            Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                                      following:
                                                                          ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

Signature Not Verified SAN

By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.05.11 11:04:19 IST

the petitioner is questioning the legality, validity and propriety of order dated

29/04/2021 (Annexure-P-1), whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension by respondent no.2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that this order has been issued with malafide intention and is otherwise stigmatic, as the same has been issued without containing the fact of contemplation of any departmental enquiry. He further submits that another officer namely Rajesh Mishra, Assistant Project Co-ordinator (Finance) has made an illegal demand from the School Management Committee audio recording of which has been made viral, wherein present petitioner was unnecessarily got involved. He further submits that the charge levelled against the petitioner is stigmatic and cause stigma upon the

petitioner. He has placed reliance upon the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.7476/2020 Jagdish Rathi Vs. State of M.P. & others and W.P.No.14176/2017 Smt. Nahid Jahan Vs. State of M.P and submits that order of suspension is liable to be set aside, as the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Counsel for State has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the order is appealable and statutory appeal under the statute is provided, therefore, without availing the said statutory remedy, Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable.

I have heard counsel for parties and perused the record. Perusal of record reveals that challenge is basically made by the petitioner with regard to malafide intention of the authorities concerned, but the case of

Signature Not Verified SAN malafide intention is not established in any manner. The impugned order has

Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA been passed by the respondent no.3-Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar and Date: 2022.05.11 11:04:19 IST

from the pleadings adduced before this Court by the petitioner, it is not clear as to why Commissioner has acted arbitrarily and with malafide intention has placed the petitioner under suspension. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been involved in the said irregularity just to save the main person who was actually committed crime, but no material has been produced before this Court to show whether any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against that person or he has been placed under suspension. In the absence of any such material available on record, it is difficult to ascertain that to save Rajesh Mishra, petitioner has been placed under suspension.

The question with regard to involvement of petitioner in the alleged irregularity is yet to be determined.

Order impugned reveals that the audio clipping in which the other employee i.e Assistant Project Co-ordinator was making illegal demand from the School Management committee has been made viral and the same would cause dent to the image of the department, as such it is necessary to examine whether such an act has been really committed by the petitioner or other employees or not. This fact can be ascertained only after conducting a regular departmental enquiry.

However, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order does not reveal about contemplation of enquiry, but it is obvious that the suspension is

always in contemplation of departmental enquiry and merely because said fact is not mentioned in the impugned order that does not vitiate the same, because if charge sheet is not issued within the specific period provided under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Signature Not Verified SAN

Appeal) Rules, 1966 itself the order shall stand revoked. The judgment on Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.05.11 11:04:19 IST

which the petitioner has placed reliance are not applicable in the facts and

circumstances of the present case. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that impugned order is stigmatic, but nowhere it is mentioned as to what stigma has been caused. The order of suspension is not stigmatic as the allegation for making suspension is made in the order and as per the requirement of law the order of suspension must contain the reason for which employee is placed under suspension.

Looking to the nature of allegation and alleged irregularity in the order itself, it is difficult to determine that the authority has acted arbitrarily and passed the order of suspension in a mechanical manner. On the other hand, whether the petitioner was involved in the alleged financial irregularity or not is a factual dispute.

Accordingly, I do not find any substance to interfere in the matter, although petitioner can avail the remedy of appeal. The appellate authority is also directed to decide the appeal, if any preferred by the petitioner within a period of three months by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE sushma

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.05.11 11:04:19 IST