[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vimal Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5576
1 WP-47257-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 47257 of 2025
VIMAL KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akash Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ayushyaman Choudhary -GA for the respondents/State.
Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 24.11.2025
(Annexure P/4), whereby the representation for revocation of suspension was
rejected, as well as the initial suspension order dated 26.03.2025.
2. The petitioner further seeks the grant of subsistence allowance and
its subsequent arrears. It is contended that the rejection of the revocation
prayer is erroneous, as the respondents failed to consider that the underlying
criminal case was registered in 2021 and has not yet progressed to the
framing of charges. The petitioner maintains that he is not responsible for the
delay in the trial.
The petitioner relies on the policy dated 28.01.2013 regarding the review of
suspension orders, which stipulates that if a trial is delayed for reasons not
attributable to the employee, the suspension may be revoked. However, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5576
2 WP-47257-2025
impugned order dated 24.11.2025 is silent regarding the causes of the trial's
delay. Consequently, the petitioner argues that both the rejection order and
the continued suspension are illegal, asserting that suspension cannot be
maintained for an indefinite period.
3. Previously, the petitioner approached the Court in W.P. No.
40723/2025, which was disposed of on 14.10.2025. The Court directed the
petitioner to file a fresh representation and instructed Respondent No. 2 to
decide the pending appeal through a reasoned and speaking order within 30
days. In purported compliance, the respondents rejected the representation,
citing the petitioner's failure to report the registration of the offence to the
office and stating that no "solid ground" for revocation existed while the
criminal case remained pending.
4. Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is under
suspension since September 2021 and there is no progress in the trial. The
delay in trial is not attributed to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner
cannot be continued under suspension for indefinite period. In support of his
submission he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the division
bench in WP No.26979/2019 Vesta Akhadiya Vs. State of MP & Ors
decided on 8.8.2022.
5. The division bench in the case of Vesta Akhadiya (supra) after
considering the judgment passed in the case of Leeladhar Songara Vs. State
of MP Vs. & Ors. passed in WP No.3521/2019 dated 6.5.2019 held as
under:-
"7. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite number of
representations, the respondents did not pass any order of
revocation of suspension. In the case of Leeladhar Songara (supra)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5576
3 WP-47257-2025
the co-ordinate bench of this Court held under similar
circumstances, the Rule 9(1) is deliberately framed to place the
petitioner therein under suspension. In the present case, the
petitioner's involvement is yet to be seen by the trial Court. There
is no direct allegation against the petitioner and the Circular issued
by the State Government dated 28.01.2013 provides for reviewing
the cases of Government servants, who are under suspension on
account of registration of criminal case as well as on the other
grounds. The petitioner is under suspension since 2014 and the
respondents are paying subsistence allowance since then without
taking any work from him. There is no progress in the criminal
trial. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner
has nothing to do with the official discharge of his duties,
therefore, keeping in view the Circular of the State Government
dated 28.01.2013 and the other circumstances the suspension order
is held unsustainable."
6. In view of the aforementioned judgment and considering that the
petitioner has remained under suspension since September 2021, with no
evidence to suggest that the delay in the criminal trial is attributable to him,
this Court finds the continued suspension unsustainable. Consequently, the
impugned order dated 24.11.2025, which rejected the petitioner's claim for
reinstatement, is hereby quashed.
7. Accordingly, the suspension order dated 26.03.2025 is also
quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service
and are further directed to pass appropriate orders regarding the
regularisation of the suspension period only after the final conclusion of the
criminal trial.
8. With these directions, the petition is allowed and disposed of.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
hk/
