Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Shravan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17084
1 WP-20546-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 20546 of 2023
AJAY SHRAVAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri P.S.Thakur - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.S.Baghel - Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri Sarthak Nema - Advocate for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated
11.02.2022 passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner has been
placed under suspension. He is also aggrieved by the order dated 31.05.2023
passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the appeal preferred against the
suspension order of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on the post of Safai
Kaamgar vide order dated 16.06.1989 in the office of Nagar Palika Nigam,
Bhopal. Later on he was regularised on the same post by an order dated
17.05.2012 after undergoing the recruitment process. In pursuance to the
same, he immediately joined his duties and was working with utmost
devotion and sincerity in the respondent/department. The petitioner obtained
Higher Secondary Exam certificate and also Diploma in Sanitary Work from
a Local Self-Help Institution. He is an athlete and represented Nagar Nigam
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17084
2 WP-20546-2023
in various tournaments all over the India. He was also selected to represent
Nagar Nigam in an event which was conducted in Malaysia. The petitioner
on 28.11.2019 conducted a seizure of 12 tons of Non-Standardized Polythene
and imposed a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- on one Mr. Pankaj Khoobchandani. The
proceedings were conducted in pursuance to the complaint received from the
NGO/Social Institutions prohibiting use of polythene and the same was
conducted in accordance with the guidelines issued by the respondent No.2.
The petitioner became scapegoat in the conspiracy and a complaint was got
registered against him before the Lokayukt as the person against whom the
petitioner has taken action was an influential person. In view of the
cognizance taken by the Lokayukt, the respondent No.2 has placed the
petitioner under suspension vide order dated 11.02.2022. The petitioner made
a representation to the respondent No.2 seeking revocation of his suspension
order but of no consequence. He also preferred a complaint to the Secretary
of SC/ST Commission, Bhopal specifically stating his grievances. The
Commissioner asked for clarification from the respondent No.2, however, no
response was given. It is argued that the provisions as contained in Rule 9 of
the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 has
not been complied with. The employee has to be placed under suspension, if
a departmental enquiry is initiated against him or an enquiry is contemplated.
In terms of Rule 9 (2)(a) the authorities are required to record his reasons for
suspension. However, in the impugned order, no such reasons are assigned.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before
this Court being Writ Petition No.18218/2022 which was disposed off vide
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17084
3 WP-20546-2023
order dated 26.08.2022 directing the petitioner to approach the appellate
authority. He again knocked the door of this Court challenging the said order
before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1237/2022 wherein vide
order dated 27.10.2022, the Division Bench had granted further 15 days' time
to the petitioner to file an appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner was supplied with
the copy of the charge sheet on 16.10.2022. However, no other order
extending the suspension period was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner
has already remained under suspension for more than 90 days without their
being any order for extension of the suspension period, therefore, the
authorities should have revoked the suspension of the petitioner. He has
placed reliance upon the judgment passed by 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 and in the case of State of Tamil
Nadu Vs. Pramod Kumar, IPS and another reported in (2018) 17 SCC 677 . It
is further argued that in absence of any extension order pertaining to
suspension of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension
for an indefinite period.
3. On notice being issued reply has been filed by the respondents.
Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has made an attempt to justify the
suspension of the petitioner on the ground that in the criminal case pending
against the petitioner a charge sheet has been filed after conducting an
enquiry against the petitioner and the matter is pending consideration in trial
before the competent special Court. The offence under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 along with Section 120B of the Indian
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17084
4 WP-20546-2023
Penal Code has been registered against the petitioner. The Special Police
Establishment, Lokayukta has also registered a case under Sections 13(1)(b)
and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 at Crime No.214/2023
against the petitioner for being in possession of disproportionate property to
his known source of income, therefore, the authorities are having every
reason to place the petitioner under suspension. It is argued that all the
grounds which have been raised by the petitioner were duly considered by
the Appellate Authority and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been
dismissed. Even a charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner and now he
is undergoing departmental enquiry, under these circumstances, there is no
merit in the present petition. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner confines his arguments to the
extent that there cannot be prolonged suspension of the petitioner without
there being any order of extension of the suspension order, in view of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar
Choudhary (supra). There is no answer to the aforesaid by the learned
counsel for the respondents.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The sole question which comes up for consideration before this Court
is whether the petitioner can be continued under suspension in absence of
any order pertaining to extension of the suspension order of the petitioner. It
is an admitted fact that against the petitioner a criminal case has been
registered wherein after completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been
filed before the competent Sessions Court. The case has been registered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17084
5 WP-20546-2023
under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and I.P.C. There are
serious allegations against the petitioner but the fact remains that the
petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 11.02.2022. There is
no order placed on record by the respondents to show that there is an
extension order passed by the authorities to keep the petitioner under
suspension after completion of 90 days. The appeal preferred by the
petitioner against the suspension order was also dismissed which is again put
to challenge in the petition. Rule 9 of CCA Rules, 1966 is relevant as the
same deals with suspension of an employee. The Clause 9(2)(b) is relevant
and reads as under :-
"(2-b) Where the disciplinary authority fails to issue to the
Government servant, a copy of the charges and other
documents referred to in sub-rule (2-a) within the period of
45 days, the disciplinary authority shall, before expiry of
the said period, obtain orders in writing of the State
Government for extension of the said period of suspension:
Provided that the period of suspension shall in no case be
enhanced beyond a period of 90 days from the date of the
order of suspension."
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary
(supra) has held as under :-
"20. It will be useful to recall that prior to 1973 an
accused could be detained for continuous and consecutive
periods of 15 days, albeit, after judicial scrutiny and
supervision. The Cr.P.C. of 1973 contains a new proviso
which has the effect of circumscribing the power of the
Magistrate to authorise detention of an accused person
beyond period of 90 days where the investigation relates to
an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and
beyond a period of 60 days where the investigation relates
to any other offence. Drawing support from the
observations contained of the Division Bench in Raghubir
Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481, and more so of
the Constitution Bench in Antulay, we are spurred to
extrapolate the quintessence of the proviso of Section
167(2) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 to moderate Suspension Orders
in cases of departmental/disciplinary inquiries also. It
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17084
6 WP-20546-2023
seems to us that if Parliament considered it necessary that a
person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90
days even though accused of commission of the most
heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be
continued after the expiry of the similar period especially
when a Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet has not
been served on the suspended person. It is true that the
proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. postulates personal
freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as
well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on
the same pedestal.
21. 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/Charge-
sheet 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. We
recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been
reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and
to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition
of a limit on the period of suspension has not been
discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to
the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the
Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal
investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in
abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by
us."
8. The same was again considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Promod Kumar IPS (supra) and it is held as under :-
"24. The first Respondent was placed under deemed
suspension under Rule 3(2) of the All India Services Rules
for being in custody for a period of more than 48 hours.
Periodic reviews were conducted for his continuance under
suspension. The recommendations of the Review
Committees did not favour his reinstatement due to which
he is still under suspension. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the first Respondent fairly
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17084
7 WP-20546-2023
submitted that we can proceed on the basis that the criminal
trial is pending. There cannot be any dispute regarding the
power or jurisdiction of the State Government for
continuing the first Respondent under suspension pending
criminal trial. There is no doubt that the allegations made
against the first Respondent are serious in nature. However,
the point is whether the continued suspension of the first
Respondent for a prolonged period is justified.
25. The first Respondent has been under suspension for
more than six years. While releasing the first Respondent
on bail, liberty was given to the investigating agency to
approach the Court in case he indulged in tampering with
the evidence. Admittedly, no complaint is made by the CBI
in that regard. Even now the Appellant has no case that
there is any specific instance of any attempt by the first
Respondent to tamper with evidence.
26. In the minutes of the Review Committee meeting held
on 27.06.2016, it was mentioned that the first Respondent
is capable of exerting pressure and influencing witnesses
and there is every likelihood of the first Respondent
misusing office if he is reinstated as Inspector General of
Police. Only on the basis of the minutes of the Review
Committee meeting, the Principal Secretary, Home (SC)
Department ordered extension of the period of suspension
for a further period of 180 days beyond 09.07.2016 vide
order dated 06.07.2016.
27. This Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of
India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 has frowned upon the practice of
protracted suspension and held that suspension must
necessarily be for a short duration. On the basis of the
material on record, we are convinced that no useful purpose
would be served by continuing the first Respondent under
suspension any longer and that his reinstatement would not
be a threat to a fair trial. We reiterate the observation of the
High Court that the Appellant State has the liberty to
appoint the first Respondent in a non sensitive post."
9. If the aforesaid principle of law is applied to the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is apparently clear that the petitioner has been
kept under suspension for more than 90 days. Although in the criminal case
registered against the petitioner, the Lokayukta department has filed a charge
sheet before the competent court but the fact remains that whether there is
any order passed by the authorities to extend the suspension period of the
petitioner or not because the same will be the basic requirement in terms of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17084
8 WP-20546-2023
Clause (2)(b) of the Rules of 1996 and in view of the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. The respondents' counsel has
not brought on record any document or order sheet passed by the State
authorities to show that they have taken a decision to extend the suspension
of the petitioner in view of the charge sheet filed before the learned
competent court. In absence of any such material being placed on record, the
authorities should have revoked the suspension order of the petitioner with
immediate effect. However, the fact remains that as the criminal case is
registered against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the
authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for revocation
of the suspension order in absence of any order passed by the authorities
extending the suspension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the
appellate order passed by the authorities is hereby quashed. The matter is
remanded back to the authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner for
revocation of suspension order taking into consideration the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as pointed out hereinabove. The entire
exercise be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed off.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
AM
