Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Kumar vs Teh State Of Madhaya Pradesh on 28 August, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23962
1 WP-33914-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 28th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 33914 of 2025
SANTOSH KUMAR
Versus
TEH STATE OF MADHAYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Soni AAG With Rajwardhan Gawde, GA for State on
advance notice.
ORDER
The petitioner who is working on the post of Principal, Govt. Kanya
Shiksha Parisar, Dhar has filed the present petition challenging the order
dated 19.08.2025 (Annx.P/12) issued by the Divisional Deputy
Commissioner, Tribal Affairs, Indore Division at the instance of respondent
No.2/Commissioner, Indore Division by which the petitioner has been
attached in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Affairs, district
Dhar. The said order reflects that same has been passed on a complaint made
regarding some sexual harassment by the respondent No.4 and matter has
been referred for enquiry to local complaint redressal committee constituted
under The Sexual Harassment of Women at workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short 'the Act).
The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 19.08.2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23962
2 WP-33914-2025
(Annx.P/13) passed by the same authority directing that charge should be
given to one Ms. Mamta Solanki, Principal Anand H.S.School till further
orders.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is holding the post of
Principal, Govt.H.S.School which is a class-II post and appointing authority
of the said post is State Govt.. He argued that the order is without
jurisdiction. He further argued that the order of attachment is alien to the
service jurisprudence. None of the service rules provides for attachment. The
same is neither order of suspension nor transfer. He further argued that the
order suffers from malafide and colourable exercise of powers. He has taken
action against the respondent Nos.4 and her husband who were working as
part time employee in the school and on a complaint they were removed
from service. On the false and frivoulous complaint of respondent No.4, the
impugned order has been passed. He further argued that an order can be
passed only on the report of internal committee or local redressal committee.
In the present case there is no recommendation of the committee as per
section 12 of the Act, 2013 and for the aforesaid reason, the impugned order
deserves to be quashed or stayed. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the order passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Lalit Girdhani Vs. Public
Health and Family Welfare Department and others(W.P.No. 15823/2019)
and also the interim order passed by this Court in the case of Bhagirath
Gathiye Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No. 36539/2024) .
Counsel for the State produced copy of the Gazette notification dated
15.09.2008 whereby the Divisional Commissioner has been notified as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23962
3 WP-33914-2025
disciplinary authority for the post of Class-I and class-II Govt. Servants.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
impugned order has been passed considering the peculiar situation of the
case that complaint regarding sexual harasment is made and matter is
pending before the committee constituted under the Act, 2013, therefore the
petitioner has been simply removed from the office of Principal and has been
attached in the office of Assistant Commissioner in Dhar itself and by
Annx.P/13 the petitioner has been directed to handover the charge of the
school till further orders. The impugned order reads that further action shall
be taken as per report submitted by the local committee. Thus, the
Commissioner, Indore Division who is admittedly the disciplinary authority
awaiting the decision of the committee on the complaint passed the
impugned order attaching the petitioner at the same place to the office of
Assistant Commissioner and the said order is subject to the report of the
committee. Thus, the order is neither suspension nor punishment but it is an
administrative arrangement till the report is received from statutory
committee under the Act of 2013. Counsel for the petitioner argued that
complainant is not appearing before the committee on the dates fixed but
from the documents filed, it is not clear that committee has filed the
complaint or not. Petitioner has already submitted a detail representation
vide Annx.P/10 to the committee.
The judgments relied on by counsel for the petitioner regarding the
attachment would not apply to the facts of the present case. In those cases
the validity of an attachment order was considered in the facts of the said
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23962
4 WP-33914-2025
case with reference to the transfer policy.
In view of aforesaid, it is directed that immediately after receiving the
report from the committee or any decision on the representation of the
petitioner by the committee, the Commissioner, Indore will take a decision
regarding continuation of the petitioner on attachment in a promptitude
manner.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
