Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinay Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17518
1 WP-1255-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 12 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1255 of 2025
VINAY KUMAR MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Ekta Vyas - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by order, dated 20.03.2024 (Annexure P/1),
whereby he is continued under suspension even after expiry of more than one
year. The petitioner has also challenged the order, dated 17.09.2020 (Annexure
P/6), whereby the petitioner was initially placed under suspension. The petitioner
has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to permit him to join the duty
after revocation of his suspension.
[2]. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that at the relevant
time, the petitioner was working as Transport Constable at Check Post Multai,
District Betul. He was involved in a criminal case for offences punishable under
Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and a criminal case was registered
against him on 17.09.2020. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the
aforesaid offence and was subsequently released on bail. On account of his
involvement in the criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension on
17.09.2020, itself (Annexure P/6). The suspension of petitioner continued for
more than three years without reconsideration by the Authorities. Being
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17518
2 WP-1255-2025
aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 30382 of 2023
praying for revocation of his suspension. This Court disposed of the writ petition
vide order, dated 29.11.2023 thereby giving liberty to the petitioner to submit
relevant documents alongwith the certified copy of the Court order before the
respondents and respondents in turn was directed to consider the matter of
petitioner's continuance on suspension and decide the same by passing the
reasoned order. In compliance of Court order, the respondents placed petitioner's
case before the Scrutiny Committee which was considered on 20.03.2024. In
paragraph-9 of the minutes of meeting, it has been observed that the investigation
against the petitioner is continuing and, therefore, it is not appropriate to revoke
the petitioner's suspension. The Committee considered the petitioner's case on
20.03.2024 where after again about one year four months have passed. It is
informed that the investigation is over and Challan has already been filed.
[3]. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is under
suspension for last more than five years. Placing reliance upon the instructions
issued by the State Government vide Circular, dated 28.01.2013 (Annexure P/7),
he submits that the matter of continuance of petitioner under suspension is
required to be considered by the respondents twice in a year. He also submits that
since the Challan is already filed, there is no use of continuing the petitioner under
suspension. Learned Counsel placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in
the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Promod Kumar, IPS & Anr. reported in AIR
2018 SC 4060. He also submits that in similar circumstances, the suspension of
various other incumbents have been revoked by the respondents. He, therefore,
prays for indulgence by this Court.
[4]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17518
3 WP-1255-2025
impugned action of the respondents and submits that the allegations made against
the petitioner are serious in nature. The offence allegedly committed by the
petitioner involves moral turpitude and, therefore, the decision to continue the
petitioner under suspension is justified. She also submits that in the matter of
suspension based upon criminal case, the petitioner cannot claim parity with other
incumbents. She submits that since the criminal case is still pending against the
petitioner, no indulgence is warranted by this Court.
[5]. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
[6]. The General Administration Department of the State Government has
issued instructions vide Circular, dated 28.01.2013 (Annexure P/7). As per this
Circular, particularly Clause 9, in cases where the suspension has been continuing
for more than one year, the Competent Authority is require to consider the matter
for further continuance of suspension twice in a year. The petitioner's case was
last considered by the respondents on 20.03.2024. Thereafter, one year and four
months have already expired and, therefore, as per the instructions issued by the
State Government, the respondent-authorities is required to revisit the matter and
take further decision.
[7]. Learned counsel for the petitioner points-out that the petitioner is facing
suspension for more than five years which has resulted in financial crises. He
submits that he is also facing certain matrimonial disputes wherein he is required
to make payment of maintenance of his wife. Learned counsel further submits that
in view of submission of Challan by the Police further continuance of petitioner
under suspension is not warranted.
[8]. The difficulties being faced by petitioner are required to be considered
by the respondent-authorities. Thus, the petition is disposed of with the direction
to the respondent no.2 to take steps for reconsideration of the matter of petitioner's
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17518
4 WP-1255-2025
continuance under suspension in view of Clause 9 of the Circular, dated
28.01.2013. Needless to mention, the Authorities/Screening Committee while
reconsidering the petitioner's case shall keep in account the judgment of Apex
Court in the case of Promod Kumar (supra) as also the difficulties being faced by
the petitioner because of impugned suspension. Needless to mention, the
Committee shall also consider the fact that the investigation is already over and
Challan has been filed.
[9]. Let necessary be done by the respondent-authorities within a period 60
days from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
[10]. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
