Dr. A.K Upadhyay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 6125 MP

                                1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                     ON THE 17 th OF APRIL, 2023
                  WRIT PETITION No. 8510 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
DR. A.K UPADHYAY S/O SHRI LATE R.G. UPADHYAY,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EYE SPECIALIST
DISTT HOSPITAL VIDISHA (SUSPENDED) HARIPURA
VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                          .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ALOK KATARE - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HELATHA ND
      FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF M.P., MANTRALAYA
      VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL, M.P. (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT OF
      MADHYA    PRADESH PUBLIC HEALTH AND
      FAMILY   WELFARE   DEPARTMENT VALLABH
      BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    THE     COMMISSIONER HEALTH           SERVICES
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    ADDITIONAL    DIRECTOR     (COMPLAINT)
      DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES SATPURA
      BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VISHAL TRIPATHI - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

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

Petitioner serving on the post of eye specialist and in charge Chief

Medical and Health Officer, Distt. Vidisha, in respondent Department has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the grievance that he has been placed under suspension vide order dated 18/11/2022 (Annexure P-1) by the Addl. Director (Complaint) Directorate of Health Services, Satpura Bhawan, Bhopal, purportedly for the reason that petitioner was in police custody for more than 48 hours as provided under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Rule 9 sub- rule (5) clause (c) & (d) and proviso appended thereto, the appointing authority or disciplinary authority as the case may be, is obliged to pass an order for

continuance/modification or revocation of suspension order with reasons to be recorded. In no case, an employee can be placed under suspension sine die. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and Another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 to bolster is submission.

Shri Vishal Tripathi learned Government Advocate on advance notice does not dispute that an order of suspension can not be continued for an indefinite period regard being had to the provision of Rule 9 of Rules, 1966.

Up o n consideration of the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties, and in the obtaining fact and circumstances of the case, it is directed that respondent No.3 shall pass an order in terms of Rule 9 sub-rule 5 clause (c) & (d) read with proviso thereunder and the judgment rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (supra) in the context of the order of suspension passed on 18/11/2022 (Annexure P-1).

L e t this exercise be completed within three weeks from the date of submission of certified copy of this order by the petitioner in person before

respondent No.3.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Rks

RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2023.04.18 11:20:37 +05'30'