Madhya Pradesh High Court

Santosh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2025

                                                              1                              WP-868-2025
                              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. 868 of 2025
                                                SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH
                                                       Versus
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Vishnu Deo Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                   Shri   Girish     Kakre,   learned     Government     Advocate       for
                           respondent/State.
                                   Shri Sanjay Sarwate, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

                                                                  ORDER

By way of present petition the order Annex.P/1 dated 12/09/2022, whereby the petitioner has been suspended so also the order Annex.P/4 dated 04/12/2024, whereby the representation of the petition for reviewing of the suspension order on account of lapse of time has been rejected, have been put to challenge.

2. The petitioner was trapped accepting bribe and an FIR under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act has been registered against him. The petitioner seeks quashment of the suspension order on the ground that challan has not been presented before the Criminal Court within a period of 90 days and therefore, in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India

2 WP-868-2025 reported in AIR 2015 SC 2389, the suspension is liable to be set aside.

3. This Court has already considered these issues in detail by a separate order passed today in WP No.2944/2025 and has held by detailed order that when an employee is suspended on account of prosecution or investigation pending in a criminal case then there would be no automatic revocation of suspension if the prosecuting agency fails to present challan before the Criminal Court within 90 days.

4. Therefore, challenge to suspension order is ejected and this Court now takes up the challenge to order Annex.P/4, whereby an application for review of suspension submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.

5. On perusal of the order Annexure P/4 dated 04/12/2024, it is evident that it has been held that the suspension Order was wholly justified and no

interference in the suspension Order is warranted.

6. The authority seems to have misunderstood the jurisdiction of review of suspension Order which is with a view to examine the desirability and necessity of keeping the employee in continued suspension. It is for the simple reason that keeping the employee for a long time under suspension saddles the State with financial burden of paying 75% of salary as subsistence allowance on one hand while depriving the state from services of the employee. With a view to balance the mutual interests and equities, the Circulars dated 30.09.2015, 28.01.2013 and 09.04.2019 have been issued by the General Administrative Department of the State.

7. Upon a perusal of the said Circulars, it is evident that the authority reviewing the suspension has to arrive at a conclusion that whether keeping

3 WP-868-2025 the employee under suspension is still conducive to the interest of the State/Employer or not. The State vide Circular dated 28.01.2013 has also considered the position that if ultimately after a long period of suspension, the employee is exonerated, then the State has to bear the burden of payment of full pay and allowances without having the benefit of services of the employee and therefore, the procedure has been carved out to carry out periodic review of the suspension to examine the desirability of keeping the employee under suspension.

8. When the Order Annexure P/4 dated 04.12.2024 is examined from the aforesaid perspective, it is not a properly speaking Order so far as the GAD Circulars dated 30.01.2015, 28.01.2013 and 09.04.2019 are concerned. The Order does not speak much about the desirability of keeping the petitioner under suspension, except that the charges are serious.

9. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the Order Annexure P/4 does not completely satisfy the requirements of the GAD Circulars dated 30.01.2015, 28.01.2013 and 09.04.2019. Moreover, almost seven months have passed since the last exercise for review was carried out and the matter can be reviewed afresh, as review is to be carried out every year.

10. The concerned authority of the State is directed to re-decide the matter on the anvil of the aforesaid Circulars issued by General Administration Department. Upon receipt of copy of this Order, the respondent No.1 shall place the matter to the concerned Committee constituted for review of suspension within a further period of two weeks and

final decision be taken on the said representation.

4 WP-868-2025

11. The entire exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of submission of representation of the petitioner and the outcome be communicated to the petitioner.

12. In terms of the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed off.

(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE