Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Kumar Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
ON THE 27th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 707 of 2022
BETWEEN :-
ARUN KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA S/O
SHRI KESHARI PRASAD, AGED
ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, JOINT
COMMISSIONER(UNDER
SUSPENSION) SWACHH BHARAT
MISSION (GRAMIN),M.P. BHOPAL
R/O 49, RED SQUARE, JAAT KHERI,
POST MISROD, DISTRICT BHOPAL
M.P. 462026 (MADHYA PRADESH)
.........PETITIONER
(SHRI MUNISH SAINI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
MANTRALAYA, VALLAB
BHAVAN, BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH).
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA,
VALLABH BHAWAN, DISTRICT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 2/28/2023
5:09:39 PM
2
BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. STATE PROGRAMME
OFFICER SWACHH BHARAT
MISSION (RURAL),
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT
AND VILLAGE DEPARTMENT
B WING, SATPUDA BHAVAN,
DISTRICT BHOPAL(M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ASHISH MISHRA - PANEL LAWYER)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
With the consent, matter is finally heard.
2. The singular question involved in this writ petition is whether
respondents were justified in keeping the petitioner under suspension
beyond a period of 90 days from the date of suspension i.e. 24.12.2021
when charge sheet was issued on 30.06.2022.
3. Shri Munish Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the charge-sheet is filed as (Annexure RJ-2) with the rejoinder which
shows that it is indeed issued on 30.06.2022 only. Thus, in view of
deeming clause ingrained in Rule 9 of MPCS (CCA Rules), 1996
(hereinafter referred as CCA Rules) the suspension stood revoked and
this Court in various judgments have taken this view. The petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 2/28/2023
5:09:39 PM
has already challenged the charge-sheet in a separate proceeding. Thus,
suspension order may be set aside.
4. The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer on the basis of
reply. However, he admitted that charge-sheet has not been issued
within 90 days from the date of suspension of the petitioner. Learned
Govt. counsel is unable to show any condition enumerated in Rule 9 of
CCA Rules are available in favor of respondents when charge sheet
could not be issued within 90 days from the date of suspension.
5. Learned counsel for the parties confined their arguments to the
extent indicated above.
6. The point involved in this case is no more res integra. This
Court in WP No.12875/2017 ( Laxmi Prasad Patel Vs. State of M.P.
and Ors.) opined as under :-
" 9. This provision is almost analogous to Rule 9 of
MP (CS) CCA Rules, 1966. A plain reading of this
provision shows that a legal fiction is created when
charge-sheet is not issued within 90 days' from the date
of issuance of suspension order the suspension shall
stand revoked automatically.
10. The second proviso to Rule 9(5)a reads as under:
"Provided further that the order of suspension
shall stand revoked on expiry of the
period of 90 days from the date of
order of suspension, in case the copy of
charges and other documents referred to in
sub-rule (2-a) are not issued to such
Government servant."
11. This provision is almost pari materia to Clause
52.1.3 aforesaid. This Court in catena of judgments
considered the impact of deeming clause ingrained
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 2/28/2023
5:09:39 PM
in the second proviso. In 2011 SCC Online MP 498
[Maqbool Mansoori vs. The State of M.P.] this Court
held that by virtue of operation of said proviso the
suspension stand automatically revoked on expiry of 90
days, since charge-sheet was not issued. Similarly view
was taken in 2014 SCC Online MP 5786 [Keshav Datt
Sharma vs. State of M.P. & another] and in 2016 SCC
Online MP 7181 [Awadesh Kumar Khair vs. State of
M.P. & others].
12. This is trite law that if statutory provision is clear
and unambiguous, it should be given effect to
irrespective of its consequences. ( See: Nelson Motis vs.
Union of India reported in 1992 (4) SCC 711and Tamil
NaduState Electricity Board vs. Central Electricity
Regulatory Commission & others reported in AIR
2007 SC 1711).
13. The present petitioner cannot be said to be
hit by principle of constructive res judicata because
when the petitioner filed earlier writ petition, the
period of 90 days' were not over from the date of
issuance of suspension order. So far the necessity to
place the present petitioner under suspension, gravity of
charges etc are concerned, the employer can exercise its
power of re-suspension etc. in accordance with law.
14. In view of aforesaid analysis, since suspension
stood automatically revoked after completion of 90
days' from the date of passing of said suspension
order, the question of keeping the present
petitioner under suspension by order dated 14.07.2017
does not arise. Accordingly, order dated 14.07.2017 is set
aside. However, liberty is reserved to the employer to
proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
15. Petition is allowed . No cost."
7. Similar view was taken by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in
WP No. 3458/2014 ( Keshav Datt Sharma Vs. State of M.P.) , the
relevant portion reads as under :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 2/28/2023
5:09:39 PM
"3. A plain reading of this provision makes it clear that a
legal fiction is created by the Rule making authority
which makes it clear that if charge sheet is not issued
within 90 days, the suspension stood automatically
revoked. In view of this fiction, no order is required to be
issued in this regard. Revocation of suspension is
automatic in cases where charge sheet is not issued
within 90 days.
4. In view of aforesaid, it is clear that action of
respondents in continuing the petitioner under
suspension beyond 90 days from 26.10.2013 is wholly
arbitrary and without any justification. It runs contrary to
CCA Rules. Resultantly, it is directed that petitioner's
suspension shall be treated as revoked from 90th Day
from 26.10.2013 and he be permitted to resume back
with all benefits from that date. So far as period from
26.10.2013 till revocation is concerned, competent
authority is directed to pass appropriate orders in this
regard. This exercise be done within 30 days from the
date of communication of this order."
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. Thus, curtains are finally drawn on this issue by various
pronouncements. Since charge-sheet is not issued within 90 days from
24.12.2021, the suspension order dated 24.12.2021 stood revoked from
90th Day. Petition shall reap all consequential benefits.
9. Petition is allowed. It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
Sarathe
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 2/28/2023
5:09:39 PM
