Madhya Pradesh High Court

Deepak Solanki vs Devi Ahilya Vishwavidalaya Davv on 9 July, 2025

Author: Anuradha Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla, Anuradha Shukla

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17252




                                                                  1                              WP-19469-2025
                              IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE
                                                          BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                       ON THE 9 th OF JULY, 2025
                                                  WRIT PETITION No. 19469 of 2025
                                             DEEPAK SOLANKI AND OTHERS
                                                       Versus
                                    DEVI AHILYA VISHWAVIDALAYA DAVV AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                  Ms. Bhakti Vyas, counsel for the petitioner.
                                  Shri Anand Soni, AAG and Shri Mukesh Kumawat, counsel for the

                           respondents on caveat.

                                                                  ORDER

Initially the petition was filed on behalf of two persons. As per court order dated 1.07.2025, counsel for petitioner submits that she is confining her prayer only in respect of petitioner No.1-Deepak Solanki.

In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 20.5.2024 passed by the respondent NO.2 whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. It is argued that there is no provision of appeal against the order of suspension and therefore petitioner has no remedy

except to file the present petition.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been placed under suspension arbitrarily. He has been discriminated as there was a protest by number of employees but being President of the Employees' Association, he has been placed under suspension. It is further argued that order of suspension is contrary to Statute 39. The suspension is not prescribed as one of the punishment for misconduct. The order is patently illegal and has been passed to victimize the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17252

2 WP-19469-2025 petitioner which would result into 'suspension syndrome' to the petitioner. In support of her submission, counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Nahid Jahan Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No 14176/2017) and also the judgment passed in the case of Dr. Rashmi Rekha Mishra Vs. State of M.P. (W.P.No. 9657/2023).

Counsel for the respondents submitted that the chargesheet has already been issued to the petitioner. The order of suspension has been passed after conducting a fact finding enquiry in which the allegations have been found to be correct that petitioner has committed misconduct by violating the rules. The order of suspension is not an order of punishment. He has referred the judgment of Hon. Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126 and Union of India and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16

SCC 147.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the order of suspension has been passed by the competent authority and the suspension is prescribed under clause 11 of the Statute. The law with regard to suspension is no longer res integra, thus the suspension is not an order of punishment. The judgments which have been pressed into service would not render any assistance to the petitioner. In the case of Smt. Nabib Jahan(supra), the petitioner was placed under suspension without there being a prima facie material regarding misconduct and in the said case it was held that suspension creates syndrome for an employee. Similarly the case of Dr. Rashmi Rekha Mishra would also not apply to the facts of the present case as in the said case, the petitioner was placed under suspension as per direction of the concerned Minister and the order of suspension was found to be malicious.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17252

3 WP-19469-2025 In view of aforesaid discussion, no case is made out for interference. The petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that observations made in the suspension order and by this Court would not prejudice the case of the petitioner in the departmental enquiry.

No order as to costs.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE