[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamlesh Kumar Sapre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9474
1 WP-8924-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 17 th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8924 of 2026
KAMLESH KUMAR SAPRE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Divakar Vyas - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Brij Mohan Patel - GA for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in
not reconsidering the matter of his suspension, despite the fact that he has been
under suspension for the last two and a half years and the departmental inquiry is
still pending.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted
as Patwari at Village Dhamkheda, Tehsil Sironj. In contemplation of a
departmental inquiry, he was placed under suspension on 03.10.2023. A charge-
sheet was thereafter issued to him on 16.08.2023. However, the inquiry has not
yet been concluded. It is further submitted that the Inquiry Officer has already
submitted his report, which was forwarded to the petitioner for his explanation
vide memo dated 05.08.2025, and the petitioner has duly submitted his
explanation. However, instead of passing a final order, the competent authority has
directed a de novo inquiry vide order dated 01.01.2026. It is contended that, in
view of the de novo inquiry, the proceedings are likely to take considerable time
and, therefore, the respondents are required to reconsider the petitioner's
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9474
2 WP-8924-2026
continuance under suspension. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has
placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in Dr. Chaman Prakash Vimal
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others in W.P.No.3629/2025. Learned counsel
thus submits that the respondents be directed to reconsider the petitioner's
continuance under suspension keeping in view of the aforesaid order passed by
this Court.
3. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the
competent authority may be directed to take an appropriate decision in accordance
with law.
4. The Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India
and another, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 , has dealt with the similar issue and
held in para 21 as under :
"21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order
should not extend beyond three months if within this period the
Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent
officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is
served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the
suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer
the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or
outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may
have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against
him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any
person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having
to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the
universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a
speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in
the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have
been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set
time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9474
3 WP-8924-2026
period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and
would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the
direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal
investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance
stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."
5. In view of the aforesaid, and considering that the petitioner has been
under suspension since 03.10.2023, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the
respondents to reconsider of the petitioner's continuance under suspension in view
of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court.
6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent
no.2 to reconsider the issue of the petitioner's continuance under suspension in
light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as in view of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).
7. The petitioner is granted liberty to submit a detailed representation
before respondent no.2, pointing out all grounds for revocation of his suspension.
Upon submission of such representation, respondent no.2 shall consider and
decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law
within a period of 30 days.
8. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-
