Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh I Atulkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 August, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-18500-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 9 th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 18500 of 2024
SANTOSH I ATULKAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alakh Alok Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Suyash Thakur - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed assailing the suspension order
dated 29.12.2022 issued by the Commissioner, Directorate of Public
Instructions, Bhopal (M.P.) on the ground that the petitioner cannot be placed
under suspension for indefinite period. Although the petitioner is having an
alternative remedy to challenge the suspension order but looking to the fact
that the suspension order was passed on 29.12.2022, this Court deemed it
appropriate to entertain this petition. Therefore, the objection is raised by the
respondent/State that an alternative efficacious remedy is available to the
petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Higher
Secondary Teacher (English) at the Government High School MPL
Panchurna, Chhindwara (MP) vide order dated 06.10.2021, after successfully
qualifying the Madhya Pradesh Higher Secondary Teacher Eligibility Test.
He was posted as the Incharge Principal of the school on 12.11.2021. The
2 WP-18500-2024
petitioner came to know about the malpractices and financial irregularities
being carried out by other other teachers of the school as certain complaints
were received by him from the school. The written complaints were also
received by the petitioner. A show cause notice dated 28.10.2022 was issued
to Ravindra Gadhkari and Kunal Nagdowane. A three member committee
was constituted vide order dated 02.011.2022 to look into the complaints.
False and fabricated complaints were made against the petitioner on the basis
of which an FIR No.443/2022 dated 04.11.2022 was lodged against him for
the offence under Section 294/323 of IPC at Police Station Pandhurna,
Chhindwara (MP) alleging therein that the petitioner has slapped Ravindra
Gadhkari on his left cheek on 03.11.2022 and abused them by saying that he
has committed financial irregularities in the school. The said complaint is
made just to create a defence and to create pressure upon the petitioner as he
has already taken action against Ravindra Gadhkari and Kunal Nagdowane
for financial irregularities. The petitioner thereafter lodged a written
complaint on 05.11.2022 to Police Station Incharge, Police Station
Pandhurna, Chhindwara (MP). Thereafter, the authority without dwelling
upon the complaint made by the petitioner has passed order dated 05.11.2022
withdrawing the order by which the petitioner was made Incharge Principal
and has directed the petitioner to report to the Vikas Khand Education
Officer, Pandhurna, Chhindwara (MP) with immediate effect. Another order
was passed slightly modifying the previous to the extent of marking his
presence before the District Education Officer, Chhindwara instead of Vikas
Khand Education Officer Pandhurna. A detailed representation dated
3 WP-18500-2024
06.11.2022 was submitted by the petitioner to the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, SC/ST Welfare, Chhindwara (MP) requesting to take action against
Ravindra Gadhkari for using casteist slurs and abusive language against the
petitioner and for threatening to remove him from his services. In the
meanwhile, the petitioner has requested the District Education Officer,
Chhindwara to cancel the order dated 05.11.2022 pointing to the health issue
of the petitioner and his old aged mother. He preferred a writ petition bearing
W.P. No.26621/2022 before this Court seeking for quashment of order dated
05.11.2022 in which notices were issued on 22.11.2022, and as an interim
measure, it was directed to maintain status quo with respect to the posting of
the petitioner till the next date of hearing. Immediately after receiving a copy
of the interim order granted by this Court, the authority has passed impugned
order dated 29.12.2022, whereby they have placed the petitioner under
suspension. On 04.01.2023 he was asked to handover the charge of the
Incharge Principal of the said school to another teacher.
3. It is his case that the petitioner is unnecessarily being harassed for
the reasons best known to the authorities, no subsequent proceedings after
29.12.2022 in pursuance to the suspension order of the petitioner was taken
up by the authorities. No proceedings in the criminal case nor any charge-
sheet has been issued to the petitioner till date. Therefore, he has prays for
revocation of his suspension order placing reliance upon the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs.
Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 2389.
4. This Court vide order dated 24.07.2024 has directed the State
4 WP-18500-2024
Government to seek instructions to the effect that whether there is any
direction or order passed by the competent authority extending the
suspension period of the petitioner. Today, when the matter is listed, the
State counsel has pointed out the instructions that no proceeding has been
taken place till date after the suspension order dated 29.12.2022. No charge-
sheet has been issued to the petitioner till date. He has fairly contended that
after the petitioner was placed under suspension, no action has been taken
against the petitioner in pursuance to the suspension order.
5. It is a settled preposition of law that the suspension order could not
be for an indefinite period. The petitioner was placed under suspension on
29.12.2022, till date no action has been taken against the petitioner. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) has
held as under:
" 1 4 We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order
should not extend beyond three months if within this period the
Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent
officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is
served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the
suspension.
As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the
concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or
outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he
may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation
against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting
any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his
having to prepare his defence.
We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized
principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also
preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. "
(Emphasis supplied)
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Public Service
Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. and others, (2003)4 SCC 104 has
5 WP-18500-2024
held as under:
"Normally, the suspension is made during a contemplated or a pending
enquiry. During the suspension period the employee is entitled for the
suspension allowance. If the suspension continues for indefinite period or
order of suspension is passed mala fide then it would be open to the
employee to challenge the same by approaching the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments held that the
suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially
transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration and
further that if it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on
sound reasoning, this would render it punitive in nature. As after passing of
the suspension order for a considerable period no action has been taken by
the authorities, petitioner's suspension order deserves to be revoked.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as
settled legal prepositions of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the fact
that no further proceedings have taken place against the petitioner after
suspension order, the suspension order cannot be permitted to continue any
more. The suspension order is revoked. The authorities are directed to permit
the petitioner to work on the post he was holding at the time of suspension
order.
9. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
ak
