Sanjay Singh Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3120 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sanjay Singh Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2025

Author: Anil Verma

Bench: Anil Verma

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1119




                                                              1                                WP-736-2025
                             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                         BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2025
                                                 WRIT PETITION No. 736 of 2025
                                               SANJAY SINGH DHAKAD
                                                       Versus
                                     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                                  Shri Rudra Pratap Singh Kaurav, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  Shri Dilip Awasthi, Government Advocate for State.

                                                                  ORDER

With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally at motion stage. Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking for following reliefs :-

"7.1 That, the Impugned Suspension order Annexure P/4 dated 06/05/2021 may kindly be set-aside on account of not providing copy of Charge-sheets to the petitioner within the stipulated period of maximum 90 days and keeping the suspension issue for a prolong period.

7.2 That, any other relief doing Justice into the matter including cost of petition, advocate fee etc. may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade- III on 6.1.1999. Thereafter, his services have been merged into the School Education Department and his post has been designated as Sahayak Adhyapak. Subsequently, on 1.7.2018, his post was re-designated as Primary Teacher. Respondent No.4 with a malafide

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1119

2 WP-736-2025 intention passed an impugned order dated 6.5.2021(Annexure P-4) regarding suspension of petitioner who is not authorized to pass the aforesaid order. At the time of Covid-19 Pandemic, the area of petitioner was wholly locked and petitioner was suffering from diabetes and heart disease, therefore, he could not be present for duty at Alampur Tiraha. Petitioner's suspension is more than 3 and half years long. This Court in the case of Devdutt Sharma Vs. The State of M.P. in W.P. No.7990/2020 order dated 9.6.2020, in the case of Dayaram Khare Vs. State of M.P. and Others (WP No.4261/2015) order dated 1.8.2017 and in the case of Nahid Jahan Vs. State of M.P. & Others (WP No.14176/2017) order dated 24.10.2017 have laid down that practically suspension is not desirable at all and such type of practice to be deprecated. Petitioner has preferred representations (Annexure P-5 and P-6) before

respondent authorities but same was not considered. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this petition.

A limited prayer has been made by counsel for petitioner, if respondent authorities are directed to decide the petitioner's representation(Annexure P-5 and P-6) in the light of the aforesaid judgments, then grievance of petitioner would be redressed.

Learned counsel for State/respondents has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by counsel for petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities that they should decide pending representations (Annexure P-5 and P-6) of petitioner in the light of the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Devdutt

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1119

3 WP-736-2025 Sharma(Supra), Dayaram Khare(Supra) and Nahid Jahan(Supra) within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and outcome of representation be communicated to the petitioner.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE