Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 November, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 29 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 29476 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ANIL SHARMA S/O SHRI ASHOK SHARMA, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O F-302
VASUNDHARA APARTMENT, HARISHANKAR PURAM,
LASHKAR GWALIOR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI D.P. SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, GOVT. OF M.P.,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC INSTRUCTION M.P.,
GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI N.S. TOMAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1 . The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been
preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"By way of issuing ad-interim writ, direction or order
the operation/effect of the order impugned dated
26.05.2023 passed by the respondent no.4 contained
in Annexure P/1 may kindly be stayed/suspended with
a further not to initiate any further action in pursuance
to the order Annexure P/1, up till final decision of the
petition, in the interest of justice."
2 . It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that at the
relevant point of time, he was working as Teacher in Govt. Primary School
Adivasi, Ghatigaon, Block Ghatigaon, District Gwalior. This is a case where
petitioner is placed under suspension vide order dated 26.05.2023 because of
allegation levelled against him is to get employment on the basis of forged mark-
sheet as per the complaint made by one RTI Activists. Therefore, he is placed
under suspension and despite passing of statutory period, charge-sheet has not
been served to the petitioner.
3. It is the grievance of petitioner that either departmental enquiry be
conducted or the case of the petitioner be considered for revocation of
suspension. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2015 (7)
SCC 291 and submits that many more such directions have been given by the
State Government to consider the case of suspended employees periodically
for revocation, so that if their cases are befitting revocation then they may be
given benefit of revocation otherwise they may be continued to the under
suspension. No departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner so far.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submits
that the allegation against the petitioner are of moral turpitude and documents
sought by the petitioner have not been provided by the petitioner to the
concerned Authority.
5 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
6. This is a case where petitioner is facing the allegation of forged mark-
sheet as per the complaint made by RTI Activists. However, respondents have
to conduct departmental enquiry if advised so beside prosecution going on in
respect of criminal offence. If the petitioner faces departmental enquiry then he
is always at liberty to produce all those documents before the concerned
Authority. However, looking to the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2015 (7)
SCC 291, it appears that concerned committee has to take care of such
exigency where employees who are placed under suspension can be considered
for further extension of suspension or revocation or based upon individual facts
and circumstances of the case.
7. Therefore, without adverting on merits of the case, this petition is
disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a certified copy of this
order along-with relevant documents for refreshing the memory of respondents
and on receipt of such documents, respondents shall place the case of
petitioner under the relevant committee for consideration in accordance with
law. It is expected that the respondents shall consider the same and decide by
passing a reasoned order at an expeditious note.
8. Resultantly, this petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
Monika
