Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghanshyam Prasad Singrole vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28571
1 WP-2944-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 1 st OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2944 of 2025
GHANSHYAM PRASAD SINGROLE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vishnu Deo Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Girish Kekre Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order of suspension
on the ground that despite lapse of 90 days from the date of suspension as
challan has not been filed by the Lokayukt against the petitioner, therefore,
the suspension should be revoked. in terms of proviso to Rule 9(2)(b) of the
M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 ( for
short" CCA Rules-1966).
2. The petitioner was suspended on account of being trapped red
handed while accepting bribe on 25.09.2024. Suspension order dated
25.9.2024 is on record as Annexure P/1. The counsel for petitioner relied on
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v.
Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 to submit that even in case
where the employee is suspended pending criminal case for offences
involving moral turpitude then also the suspension has to go if the police fails
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28571
2 WP-2944-2025
to present challan before the Court within 90 days.
3. The counsel for the State though opposes the petition, but, leaving
it for this Court to decide the legal issue.
4. Upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that there
are two different powers vested under Rule 9 of CCA Rules. First is under
Rule 9(1) (a) where the suspension can be ordered if disciplinary proceedings
against employee are contemplated or pending, and second where a case
against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry
or trial. Proviso to 9 (1) further provides that a Government servant shall
invariably be placed under suspension when a challan for a criminal offence
involving corruption or other moral turpitude is filed after sanction of
prosecution by the Government.
5. As per Rule 9(2), which is an extension of power under Rule 9(1)
(b), Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under
suspension with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in
custody on any ground whatsoever for a period exceeding forty-eight hours
or with effect from the date of his conviction, if, he is sentenced to a term of
imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours.
6. As per Rule 9 (2) (a) when a Government servant is suspended
under Rule 9(1)(a), i.e. where it is proposed to hold an enquiry against him
then a copy of charge-sheet with list of document and witnesses has to be
served upon government servant within stipulated period of 45/90 days as
the case may be, and as per Rule 9(2)(b), when the disciplinary authority
fails to issue such statement of charges and other documents then order shall
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28571
3 WP-2944-2025
be obtained for extension of the said period of suspension and the period of
suspension shall in no case be enhanced beyond a period of 90 days from the
date of the order of suspension. Relevant part of Rule 9 is as under:-
"9.
(1)The appointing authority or any authority to which it is
subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority
empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or special
order, may place a Government servant under suspension-
(a)where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or
is pending, or
(b)where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is
under investigation, inquiry of trial :
[Provided that a Government servant shall invariably be placed
under suspension when a challan for a criminal offence involving
corruption or other moral turpitude is filed against him :] [Inserted
by Notification No. C-6-2-96-3-(I), dated 3rd August.
1996.]Provided further that where the order of suspension is made
by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority
shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances
in which the order was made.
(2)A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed
under suspension by an order of appointing authority-
(a)with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in
custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period
exceeding forty-eight hours;
(b)with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of
conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of
imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith
dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such
conviction.
Explanation. - The period of forty-eight hours referred to in clause
(b) of this sub-rule shall be computed from the commencement of
the imprisonment after the conviction and for this purpose,
intermittent periods of imprisonment,, if any, shall be taken into
account.[(2-a) Where a Government servant is placed under
suspension under clause (a) of sub-rule (1), the order of
suspension shall contain the reasons for making such order and
where it is proposed to hold an enquiry against such Government
servant under Rule 14, a copy of the articles of charges, the
statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list
of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28571
4 WP-2944-2025
proposed to be sustained shall be issued or caused to be issued by
the disciplinary authority to such Government servant as required
by sub-rule (4) of Rule 14, within a period of 45 days from the
date of order of suspension :Provided that where the disciplinary
authority is the [State Government or the High Court] [Inserted by
Notification No. F-6-5-81-3-I, dated 26-2-1982.], the copy of
charges and other documents mentioned above shall be issued or
caused to be issued to such Government servant within a period of
90 days from the date of order of suspension.](2-b) Where the
disciplinary authority fails to issue to the Government servant, a
copy of the charges and other documents referred to in sub-rule
(2-a) within the period of 45 days, the disciplinary authority shall,
before expiry of the said period, obtain orders in writing of the
State Government for extension of the said period of suspension
:Provided that the period of suspension shall in no case be
enhanced beyond a period of 90 days from the date of the order of
suspension."
7. Rule 9(2)(a) applies to suspension under Rule 9(1-a) i.e. where
disciplinary proceedings against him are contemplated or pending.
Suspension under Rule 9(1)(b) does not contain any such rider and such
rider is only under Rule 9(1-a). Rule 9(2-a) and (2-b) shall apply with their
proviso only when suspension is under 9(1) (a). The suspension of the
petitioner was on the ground of investigation of criminal offence against him
and suspension order clearly mentions it to be under Rule 9(1-b). Therefore,
the ground of the petitioner that suspension order has to go even if case of
the pendency of criminal investigation and criminal case after 90 days holds
no ground and is rejected. This Court is fortified in its conclusion by
judgement of the coordinate Bench in Muniru Zama Vs. State of M.P., 2001
(1) MPWN 18. Though the case concerned necessity to issue Departmental
charge-sheet in cases of suspension under Rule 9(1)(b), but this Court
considered an analogous issue, and the said argument was negated.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28571
5 WP-2944-2025
8. So far as the reliance in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v.
Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 is concerned, in para 20 and
21 of the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
20. It will be useful to recall that prior to 1973 an accused could be
detained for continuous and consecutive periods of 15 days, albeit, after
judicial scrutiny and supervision. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
contains a new proviso which has the effect of circumscribing the power
of the Magistrate to authorise detention of an accused person beyond a
period of 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable
with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less
than 10 years, and beyond a period of 60 days where the investigation
relates to any other offence. Drawing support from the observations
contained of the Division Bench in Raghubir Singh v. State of
Bihar [(1986) 4 SCC 481 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 511] and more so of the
Constitution Bench in Antulay [(1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93] ,
we are spurred to extrapolate the quintessence of the proviso to Section
167(2) CrPC, 1973 to moderate suspension orders in cases of
departmental/disciplinary enquiries also. It seems to us that if Parliament
considered it necessary that a person be released from incarceration after
the expiry of 90 days even though accused of commission of the most
heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be continued after the
expiry of the similar period especially when a memorandum of
charges/charge-sheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is
true that the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC postulates personal freedom,
but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a
speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal.
21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should
not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of
charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if
the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must
be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the
Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in
any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or
personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for
obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also
prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and
documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this
will adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human
dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of
the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the previous
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28571
6 WP-2944-2025
Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the
grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the
imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in
prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice.
Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that
pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held
in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.
9. From a perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs of the said judgment, it
is evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once in criminal case
accused is entitled to be released on bail after expiry of 90 days from arrest
then suspension should not be continued after expiry of the similar period
specially when the memorandum of charge-sheet has not been served on
suspended person. It is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only drawn
analogy from Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. to hold that once the charge-sheet has
not been supplied to the delinquent within 90 days, then suspension has to
go. Only analogy is taken from Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and nowhere from
reading of paragraphs 20 and 21 it can be deduced that if the suspension is on
account of criminal charges and the police fails to present challan before the
Criminal Court in 90 days, then suspension ordered by the department will
come to an end. The said ratio is not to be found in paragraphs 20 and 21 in
case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) , therefore, no interference is
warranted in the suspension order on the grounds raised by the petitioner.
10. Moreover, it is well known that investigation is cases of
corruption usually consumes a lot of time. Delay in completion of
investigation can be a ground for the disciplinary authority to review the
same. For that purpose, GAD has issued circular dated 28.01.2013,
30.09.2015 and 09.04.2019.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28571
7 WP-2944-2025
11. Petitioner is granted liberty to seek review of suspension as per
GAD instructions issued from time to time after expiry of timeline as per the
said instructions of the GAD.
12. With the aforesaid observation, petition is dismissed .
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
