Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash Chandra Nigam vs Chief Managing Director on 5 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10567
1 WP-33757-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 33757 of 2024
PRAKASH CHANDRA NIGAM
Versus
CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 4563 of 2024
PRAKASH CHANDRA NOGAM
Versus
SHRI PRAMIL KUMAR MISHRA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Satya Prakash Mishra along with Shri Falgun Yadav, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 & 4.
Shri Rahul Patel, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
ORDER
WP No.33757/2024 has been filed challenging the suspension order
Annex.P/4 dated 08/10/2024, whereby the petitioner has been placed under
suspension. Conc. No.4563/2024 has been filed by the petitioner alleging
non-compliance of stay order dated 25/10/2024 passed in the writ petition.
2. The petitioner has put to challenge the order Annex.P/4 dated 08/10/2024,
whereby the petitioner who is working on the post of Junior Engineer has
been placed under suspension by the Superintending Engineer (O & M),
Satna. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises three grounds of attack to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10567
2 WP-33757-2024
aforesaid suspension order Annex.P/4. It is contended firstly that the order
has been passed by the Superintending Engineer Shri P.K. Mishra, who is not
substantive by holding the post of Superintending Engineer and is holding
the substantive post of Executive Engineer and a person holding the current
charge of higher post has no authority to exercise statutory powers of higher
post. Therefore, the suspension order is without jurisdiction. A second
ground is taken that even if otherwise the said Officer is found to be
competent to suspend the petitioner, then also as per the circular dated
25/11/2022, it has been laid down by the company that the Engineering
Cadre Officer shall not be subjected to departmental/disciplinary action
without prior sanction of Chief General Manager (HR&A), Jabalpur, so as to
avoid frequent unnecessary actions against such Engineering Officers which
leads to their demoralization. It is contended that in the present case there is
no prior approval of the Chief General Manager. A third ground is taken that
in any event the suspension order is a clear cut case of the respondents
suffering from suspension syndrome because no major dereliction from
duties or misconduct has been alleged in the suspension order Annex.P/4 and
therefore, the suspension is totally unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is
placed on judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.
Nahid Jahaan Vs. State of M.P. & others passed in WP No.14176/2017.
3. Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the
issue whether the current charge holder is competent to take disciplinary
action or place the employee under suspension does not arise at all in the
present case because even if the Superintending Engineer Shri P.K. Mishra is
holding current charge of the post of Superintending Engineer, then he is a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10567
3 WP-33757-2024
substantive Executive Engineer and as per delegation of power of
respondent/Company placed on record as Annex.P/3, the Executive Engineer
is having powers of suspension and minor penalties for all Class-III
employees and therefore, the petitioner being a Class-III employee, the
Executive Engineer is having power and competence to place him under
suspension, therefore, even if Shri P.K. Mishra is taken to be an Executive
Engineer, he has power and competence to place him under suspension.
4. It is further contended that there were allegations against the petitioner
which were serious in nature on account of which he was placed under
suspension and charge sheet has been issued though, the same has not been
placed on record.
5. It is further argued that so far as the prior approval of Chief General
Manager is concerned, that will not be required in the case because the
circular dated 25/11/2022 issued by the Chief General Manager itself
clarifies that disciplinary action means charge sheet or show cause notice and
not suspension. Thus, suspension is not within the scope of said circular.
6. Heard.
7. So far as the issue regarding the suspension order being passed by
Superintending Engineer holding current charge of the post of
Superintending Engineer is concerned, it is true that different views are taken
by different Coordinate Benches of this Court in the said matter. In some
cases it has been held that current charge holder can take disciplinary action
because it amounts to administrative or executive powers and not statutory
powers. In some cases, it has been held that it amounts to exercising
statutory powers which cannot be done by the current charge holder.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10567
4 WP-33757-2024
However, in the present case as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the
respondents, said question does not arise. It is because Shri P.K. Mishra even
if taken to be a current charge holder Superintending Engineer, then he is
holding the substantive post of Executive Engineer and as per delegation of
powers, Executive Engineer is having powers of final penalty and suspension
for all Class-III employees, therefore, this ground is not available to the
petitioner and is hereby discarded.
8. So far as the issue regarding prior approval of Chief General Manager is
concerned, this Court has gone through the circular dated 25/11/2022 and as
per the said circular, it has been clearly mentioned that procedure is being
laid down for taking disciplinary action and disciplinary action has been
specified as charge sheet/show cause notice by mentioning such words in
brackets. Therefore, the said circular does not relate to powers of suspension
and upon a perusal of the said circular dated 25/11/2022, it is evident that
prior approval in respect of Engineering cadre employees will be required
only for issuance of charge sheet and show cause notices and not for
suspension and thus, the Chief General Manager would come into picture
only at the time of issuance of charge sheet or show cause notice. Therefore,
this ground raised by the petitioner also stands discarded.
9. So far as the suspension order suffering from suspension syndrome is
concerned, it was argued by learned counsel for the respondents that indeed
the suspension order does not contain much reasons but in fact suspension
order is not required to contain detailed reasons because the reasons are to
follow in the charge sheet and suspension order is not an encyclopedia of
allegations. It only needs to contain brief reasons which may justify keeping
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10567
5 WP-33757-2024
the employee out of range of mischief pending issuance of charge sheet and
enquiry, if required.
10. Upon perusal of the suspension order it is seen that the only allegations
against the petitioner are not resolving the complaints of the consumers
timely, using indecent language to consumers and negligence in company
work. No specific instance has been quoted in suspension order that what are
the specific instances of negligence and use of indecent languages and how a
prima facie conclusion has been reached to place the petitioner under
suspension and on these grounds it was contended that the suspension order
suffers from suspension syndrome which has been highly deprecated by this
Court in the case of Nahid Jahan (supra).
11. This argument was countered by learned counsel for the respondents on
the ground that the charge sheet has to contain detailed reasons. However,
the respondents have not placed charge sheet on record, which would have
enabled this Court to properly appreciate the contention of the petitioner that
in fact there are no valid reasons to place the petitioner under suspension and
the suspension order suffers from suspension syndrome and no real factual
grounds are available in the case for suspension which can be raised by him
in appeal. Therefore, by not placing the charge sheet on record, the
respondents have not countered the aforesaid ground of the petitioner in
proper perspective. However, in vacuum of material, it cannot be held by this
Court that the suspension order is based on non existent material and suffers
from suspension syndrome.
12. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court it would be appropriate
to relegate the petitioner to the Chief General Manager of the Company, who
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10567
6 WP-33757-2024
shall consider whether consequential charge sheet or show cause notice has
been issued to the petitioner under approval of the said authority and whether
there are sufficient grounds available on facts to place or to continue the
petitioner under suspension.
13. It is made clear that this order will not used as a tool to cure any
jurisdictional defect in the charge sheet or show cause notice that might have
been issued to the petitioner already.
14. Let the Chief General Manager (HR&A) take an appropriate decision in
the matter and dwell upon the matter in terms of above. Till decision is taken
by the Chief General Manager, the interim order granted by this Court on
25/10/2024 shall continue in operation and the petitioner shall be allowed to
work as Junior Engineer and draw his salary as Junior Engineer. The writ
petition stands disposed of.
15. So far as Conc. No.4563/2024 is concerned, in the contempt petition it is
admitted by the petitioner that though he has been allowed to join but he has
not been allowed to work as Junior Engineer in terms of the stay order.
During course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner clearly
admitted that the petitioner has been allowed to join and draw salary as
Junior Engineer but he has not been permitted to work as Junior Engineer.
16. In the opinion of this Court, the said issue seems to be beyond the scope
of stay order dated 08/10/2014.
17. The main writ petition has already been disposed of by this order with
directions to permit the petitioner to work as Junior Engineer and draw salary
as such till decision is taken by the Chief General Manager.
18. In view of the above, no further orders are required in this contempt
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10567
7 WP-33757-2024
petition. The same is also disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
RS
