Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Shankar Goswami vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51734
1 WP-27484-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 27484 of 2024
SHIVPOOJAN SHUKLA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE SECRETARY CO-OPERATIVE
DEPARTMENT MANTRALAY, AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Lala - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Aryaditya Singh - Government Advocate for the
Respondent/State.
Shri Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi- Advocate for the Respondent No.4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 31546 of 2024
RAVI SHANKAR GOSWAMI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Lala - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Aryaditya Singh - Government Advocate for the
Respondent/State.
Shri Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi- Advocate for the Respondent
No.4.
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 4415 of 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 10/15/2025
10:38:24 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51734
2 WP-27484-2024
RAVI SHANKAR GOSWAMI
Versus
S.K.KANOJIA
Appearance:
Shri Anil Lala - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi- Advocate for the Respondent
No.4.
ORDER
The Writ Petitions No.27484/2024 and 31546/2024 have been filed
challenging the Orders of suspension of the Petitioners therein who are
working on the post of Society Manager in the Respondent No.4/District
Central Co-operative Bank, Chhattarpur. The Contempt Petition
No.4415/2025 has been filed alleging non compliance of Interim Order dated
21.09.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.27484/2024. The facts are taken from
Writ Petition No.27484/2024.
2. The Petitioner has been suspended vide Order Annexure P-1 dated
14.08.2024 on the ground that the Petitioner has committed certain
irregularities in the operation of Chief Minister Debt Relief Scheme which
has led to unauthorized credits to the tune of Rs.64.02 lakhs whereas the
allegation in the Writ Petition No.31546/2024 is illegal credits to the tune of
Rs.24.55 lakhs.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
suspension Order has been issued without the matter being scrutinized by the
Enquiry Board. It is further argued that the Charge sheet has not been issued
to the Petitioners within 90 days as required under the Regulations and also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51734
3 WP-27484-2024
that the suspension has been unduly prolonged without any just cause and the
Petitioner is still under suspension for the last more than one year.
4. Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the
Respondent/Bank that the Petitioners have wrongfully relied on a judgment
in the case of Gopal Prasad Panthi Vs. State of M.P. and Others in Writ
Petition No.23124/2019 to contend that for suspension, there should be
ratification of approval from Enquiry Board because the charge sheet has
been issued at a later date and ratification for approval from Enquiry Board
would arise only when the enquiry is held not at the stage of suspension
which was prior to issuance of charge sheet. It is further argued that charge
sheet has been issued to the Petitioners and Enquiry Officer has been
appointed. It is further argued that FIR has also been lodged against the
Petitioners in the matter and therefore, it is a case of financial irregularities
and this Court should not interfere in the matter and the stay earlier granted
deserves to be vacated and the Petitions deserve to be dismissed, even
otherwise there is alternative remedy.
5. Upon hearing the rival parties, it is seen that the present Petition has
been filed solely on the ground that suspension cannot be ordered without
approval/ratification of the Enquiry Report once the defalcation amount is
exceeding 10.00 lakhs. However, the reliance on the judgment in the case of
Gopal Prasad Panthi (supra) seems to be misplaced because in the present
case, the Petitioners have only challenged the orders of suspension and not
the order initiating Enquiry or the findings of the Enquiry or the Order after
Enquiry. Therefore, the requirement of Enquiry Board at the stage of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51734
4 WP-27484-2024
suspension seems to be unsubstantiated argument on part of the Petitioners
and the same is discarded.
6. So far as the argument that the Charge sheet was not issued to the
Petitioners within 45 days or 90 days is concerned, the Respondents have
placed on record the fact that charge sheet has been issued to the Petitioner
on 25.09.2024 which is within 45 days and therefore, the said ground is
prima facie not made out. It was argued by learned counsel for the
Petitioners at this stage that the service of the charge sheet has not been
placed on record however, it is seen that the Petitioners have not taken this
ground in the Writ Petition and therefore, the Respondents have not placed
on record the effect of despatch and service of the charge sheet. The
pleadings in this regard are lacking so as to arrive at any final conclusion. So
far as the continuation of the suspension period is concerned, as per clause
42.2(2) of the Regulations of the Bank, suspension can be extended if
criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. In the present case,
there is FIR against the Petitioners and the Petitioners have been granted bail
in the said criminal case.
7. So far as the desirability of keeping the Petitioners under suspension
is concerned, that can be looked into by the authorities under section 55(2) of
the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and the question of dispatch and
service of charge sheet can also be looked into by the same authority. The
question that whether the Petitioners were apprehending arrest in criminal
case and for that reason, whether the service of charge sheet was related can
also be looked into by the said authority.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51734
5 WP-27484-2024
8. Consequently, interference at this stage is declined. The Petitioners
are relegated to approach the concerned Registrar under section 55(2) of the
M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 within 15 days from today.
9. In case the Petitioners approach the Registrar within 15 days from
today with application for stay, then the interim order granted on earlier
occasion shall continue till disposal of the stay application. The interim
protection would end in case the Petitioners fail to file dispute with stay
application within 15 days from today.
10. In view of the aforesaid terms, the Writ Petitions are disposed off.
11. So far the Contempt Petition is concerned, it appears that despite
stay order dated 25.10.2024, the respondents have not complied with the said
stay order. The respondents may comply with the stay Order within 7 days
from today. In case he respondents fail to comply with the stay order, then
the petitioner would be at liberty to get the Contempt Petition revived.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
