Rohit Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9857 MP

                                                            1
                          IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                                ON THE 30 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 9783 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         ROHIT KHARE S/O LATE SHRI KASHI NATH KHARE,
                         AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT
                         GRADE IIII OFFICE OF DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
                         CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI ADITYA AHIWASI - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                               PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
                               DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    C O M M I S S I O N E R , PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
                               DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    C O L L E C T O R , C H H A T A R P U R DISTRICT
                               CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, CHHATARPUR
                               DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI PRADEEP SINGH - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                               This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                             ORDER

This is a petition filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 2.3.2023 contained in (Annexure P-1) by which the petitioner, in purported exercise of power conferred under the statutory rules, has been placed under suspension. Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 7/3/2023 11:27:02 AM

2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that along with the order of suspension, the petitioner has also been served with a charge sheet, which contains a charge as regards furnishing incorrect information to one Shri Babulal Ahirwar. It is further contended that in the charge-sheet itself, the punishment under Rule 10(1) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereafter referred to as the Rules of 1966) is proposed and the penalty as stipulated under Rule 10(1) of the Rules of 1966 is minor, being a penalty of Censure, therefore, in view of FR 53-A, the petitioner could not have placed under suspension, inasmuch as, the General Administration Department vide circular dated 13.1.2005 has clarified that in the

cases of minor penalty, the employee should not be placed under suspension. Thus, submits that as the respondents have already disclosed their proposed action in the charge-sheet itself, therefore, taking into consideration the contents of the charge-sheet, the petitioner could not have been placed under suspension.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the ground pertaining to jurisdiction of the Collector to pass an order of suspension in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 20260 of 2019.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that as the petitioner is not disputing the order on the question of jurisdiction of the Collector, it is for the petitioner to assail the order of suspension dated 2.3.2023 by filing an appeal in terms of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1966 before the appellate authority and, therefore, in view of the availability of alternative efficacious remedy, this petition being not maintainable, deserves to be dismissed.

5. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel

Signature Not Verified for the parties, as the alternative efficacious remedy to assail the order of Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 7/3/2023 11:27:02 AM

suspension dated 2.3.2021 contained in (Annexure P-1) is undisputedly available, without expressing any view on the merit, this petition stands disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner prefers an appeal before the appellate authority within 15 days from today, the appellate authority shall take decision thereon within further period of 45 days by passing a well reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

6. It is made clear that if the appeal in terms of this order is not submitted within 15 days, this order shall lose its efficacy automatically without further reference to the Bench.

7. Till the decision on the appeal or for a period of 60 days (whichever is earlier), the interim order passed by this Court on 11.5.2023 shall remain in force.

8. Disposed of accordingly.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE PB

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 7/3/2023 11:27:02 AM