[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Randhir Singh Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11529
1 WP-12089-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 8 th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 12089 of 2026
RANDHIR SINGH AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Nakul Khedkar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kaushlendra Singh Tomar - GA for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.08.2025, whereby the
petitioner was placed under suspension on account of the registration of an
FIR against him for offences under Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC. Warrant
has been issued against the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary
vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, the respondents are
required to review the petitioner's continuance under suspension. He has also
relied upon the order passed by this Court in Ramniwas Sharma vs. State of
M.P. & Others in W.P.No.525 of 2023 and has prayed for disposal of this
petition with a suitable direction to the respondents.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the basis of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11529
2 WP-12089-2026
registration of a criminal case and, therefore, no direction is required to be
issued in this regard.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. This Court, in the case of Ramniwas Sharma (supra), has passed the
following order:
"The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed being aggrieved by the order 07.01.2022
whereby petitioner was suspended on the ground that one criminal
case was registered against him at Crime No.23 of 2021 under
Sections 420, 193, 198, 467, 468 471 and 120B of IPC.
Counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that even after
lapse of 90 days as provided under Rule 9 of Madhya Pradesh
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966,
the said order of suspension has not been reviewed.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to file
fresh representation narrating all the details averred in the Writ
Petition and prayed that the respondent/authorities may be directed
to consider the same in the light of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v.
Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291, as expeditously as possible.
The prayer so made by Counsel for the petitioner is not opposed
by the Counsel for the State.
Looking to the innocuous prayer made by Counsel for the
petitioner, this petition is disposed of with direction to the
petitioner to submit fresh representation narrating all the factual
details before respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 3 in turn is
directed to take appropriate decision on the representation in the
light of judgment rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary
(Supra), preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of
submission of representation along with certified copy of the
order.
With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11529
3 WP-12089-2026
6. In view of the aforesaid, the similar direction is issued in this case.
The petitioner is granted liberty to file a representation before respondent No.
4, pointing out the grounds for revocation of his suspension. Respondent No.
4 shall thereafter consider the said representation, keeping in view the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary
(supra), and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the
case and the authority shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-
