Madhya Pradesh High Court
Asvan Ram Chiravan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 April, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17353
1 WP-12164-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 9 th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 12164 of 2025
ASVAN RAM CHIRAVAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri S.R.Tamrakar - Senior Advocate with Shri Ankit Chopra - Advocate
for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated
28.03.2025 (Annexure P/10) passed by the respondent No.2.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed way back
in February, 2001 as a Naib Tahsildar and he was posted at Harda. He was
promoted on the post of Tehsildar and was posted at Khargone. He was
subsequently promoted on the post of Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) and
given the charge of post of Deputy Collector vide order dated 25.03.2023.
The petitioner was discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction. All of a
sudden he was transferred vide order dated 25.01.2024 from Chitrangi
District Singrauli to the office of Collector as an In-charge Deputy Collector.
On the same day, he was again transferred from District Singrauli to the
General Administrative Department, Bhopal as an Officer on Special Duty
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17353
2 WP-12164-2025
vide order dated 25.01.2024. He preferred a Writ Petition No.2740/2024
which was disposed off vide order dated 08.02.2024 directing the authorities
to consider and decide the representation within period of 30 days and till
then the petitioner was directed to continue at the place of posting i.e. at
Singrauli. Pursuant to the same, the authorities have decided the
representation vide order dated 16.03.2024 and while deciding the
representation he was directed to be transferred as Deputy Collector at
District Narmadapuram. On 16.03.2024, he joined the office of Collector,
Narmadapuram. Again on 04.09.2024 he was transferred in the capacity of
Sub Divisional Officer, Sohagpur District Narmadapuram. He executed that
order and joined at Sohagpur. He was again transferred on 22.03.2025 from
Sohagpur to the Head Office of District, Narmadapuram. He immediately
made a representation requesting cancellation of his transfer order. He again
filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order dated 22.03.2025
being Writ Petition No.10896/2025 wherein this Hon'ble Court vide order
dated 25.03.2025 was pleased to stay the effect and operation of the order
dated 22.03.2025. He was again given the charge and posting in pursuance to
the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition. All of a sudden, the
respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order whereby he has been placed
under suspension on account of a complaint dated 22.03.2025 which was
received by the authorities.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the complaint levying allegations
under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was made against the petitioner by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17353
3 WP-12164-2025
female employees. It is argued that Section 12 of the Act of 2013 provides
the procedure to be adopted by the authorities during the pendency of
enquiry. The same has not been adhered to by the authorities as the enquiry
in pursuance to the complaint made against the petitioner is still pending
consideration, therefore, at the most the authorities could have transferred the
petitioner from the present place of posting but vide impugned order, the
petitioner has been transferred just to circumvent the order passed by this
Court granting interim relief to the petitioner vide order dated 25.03.2025.
Therefore, this petition has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgment passed in the case of Dr. Rashmi Rekha Mishra Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and another (Writ Petition No.9657/2023) decided on
11.10.2023 referring to Para 23 and 24 and in the case of Dr. Krishna Kumar
Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Writ Petition
No.18572/2024) decided on 18.07.2024 referring to para 5, 6 and 7.
5. Learned Deputy Advocate General on advance notice has placed
before this Court certain facts regarding the suspension of the petitioner. It is
argued by him that an enquiry is being conducted with respect to the
allegations made in the complaint against the petitioner. The same is pending
consideration. A five member Committee has been constituted to enquire
into the same. The statements of atleast 12 female employees (Patwaris)
were recorded. From the perusal of the statements, it is apparently clear that
the language which has been used by the petitioner with co-employees is not
only derogatory but also attracting the provisions of the Sexual Harassment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17353
4 WP-12164-2025
of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
When the matter was placed before the Collector, who immediately intimated
the same to the Commissioner. The Commissioner after going through the
report submitted by the Collector regarding working of the petitioner and
after going through the statements of 12 female Patwaris recorded by the
Committee has arrived at a conclusion that the conduct of the petitioner is
derogatory and the language which has been used against the female
employees clearly shows his working and the allegations made against the
petitioner are grave in nature. Therefore, a decision was taken to place the
petitioner under suspension. It is argued that it is only a suspension order for
which the remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. The grounds for
entertaining the suspension order are limited and the same can only be
interfered on exceptional circumstances, if it is passed by incompetent
authority or malafides are alleged against the officers. In the present petition,
the argument of malafides has not been raised because no such officer is
impleaded by name as respondent in the case. As far as competence of
authority is concerned, the Divisional Commissioner is competent to place
the petitioner under suspension. He has placed on record the judgment passed
in Writ Petition No.18572/2024 decided on 18.07.2024 in the case of Dr.
Krishna Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others to
substantiate the arguments. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The record clearly indicates that the petitioner has been subject to
series of continuous transfers. The transfer order is put to challenge and there
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17353
5 WP-12164-2025
is an interim relief granted by this Court in Writ Petition No.10896/2025. As
far as suspension order is concerned, there are complaints made by the
female employees regarding the working and the language which has been
used by the petitioner while taking work from them. A five Member
Committee is constituted who is enquiring into the complaint. As many as
statements of 12 female employees have been recorded who were working
under the petitioner and from the statements it is apparently clear that the
language which has been used by the petitioner is derogatory. When the
matter was placed before the Collector, he immediately forwarded the same
to the Divisional Commissioner who after going through the statements
recorded by the Committee has arrived at a conclusion that the conduct of the
petitioner is inappropriate and the language which is being used is derogatory
and finding that the allegations which are levied against the petitioner are
grave in nature has taken a decision to place the petitioner under suspension.
It is not a case where the competence of the authority is put to challenge or
there are malafides alleged against the officers. As the argument of malafides
although raised before this Court cannot be accepted for the reason that the
officer is not being impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petition. As
far as competence of authority is concerned, there is no challenge to the
same. Apart from the aforesaid, it is settled principles that the suspension is
not a punishment. The learned Divisional Commissioner being the competent
authority found that the petitioner has used foul language with the female
employees working under him, as well as the fact that there are serious
allegation made against the petitioner, he found it fit to place the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17353
6 WP-12164-2025
under suspension. The petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious
remedy of challenging the suspension order before the Appellate Court.
Under these circumstances and looking to the findings recorded in the
impugned order dated 28.03.2025, no relief can be extended to the
petitioner.
8. The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
AM
