The court emphasized that the grounds for suspension must be mentioned in the order and found the reasons presented by the State Government to be sufficient for the suspension of the petitioner.

Arun Mishra, J.

1. In writ appeal an order dated 26-3-2010 passed by learned Single Judge staying the operation of the order of suspension has been assailed.

2. The Petitioner was holding the post of Director, Health Services, M.P., Bhopal. His suspension was ordered vide order (P-1), dated 24-2-2010. It was mentioned in the order of suspension that there were six cases pending with respect to serious irregularities before the Lokayukt. In one of the cases, charge-sheet has already been issued against Dr. Ashok Sharma. Income Tax Department has also sent the report in which it was mentioned that he was possessing disproportionate assets as compared to his income. As there was possibility of influencing the enquiry adversely, he was placed under suspension.

3. It was submitted before the Single Bench by the Petitioner that State Government has conducted an enquiry against the Petitioner and vide Documents P-5, P-6, P-7, P-8, P-11, P-14 and P-15 nothing has been found against the Petitioner. Order (P-20) passed by this Court in writ petition has also been relied upon by the Petitioner. The Single Judge has granted stay of suspension order on 26-3-10. Aggrieved thereby the instant writ appeal has been preferred.

4. Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned Deputy A.G. appearing for State/ Appellants has submitted that the order of suspension could not have been stayed in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. No clean chit has been given by the State to the Petitioner. On the other hand, yet another Departmental Enquiry has been initiated in which Petitioner has been placed under suspension subsequent to the instant case. Fresh suspension was ordered on 6th of May, 2010. Learned Deputy A.G. has also relied upon decision of Apex Court in State of Orissa through its Principal Secretary, Home Dept. v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126, laying down that when an investigation is likely to be affected by an incumbent, suspension is warranted. He has further submitted that remedy of appeal is also available to the Petitioner as such no case for interference is made out.

5. Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has submitted that order of suspension was not warranted. Merely, due to the fact that investigation was pending in six cases before the Lokayukt, suspension could not have been ordered. Order (P-20) passed by this Court in writ petition has also been relied upon in which contract which was awarded to Jagran Solutions was upheld. He has further submitted that though the Petitioner has been suspended subsequently in another case, but his suspension was totally unwarranted in the case in question by the impugned order. Remedy of appeal could not be said to be an efficacious remedy as the decision has been taken by the State Government to suspend him. Learned Counsel has further submitted that order being interlocutory one, interference in the writ appeal is not warranted. Writ appeal cannot be said to be maintainable against such an order of interim stay passed in a writ petition.

6. After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties and going through the various documents, we are of the considered opinion that the order of stay of suspension cannot be allowed to stand in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It is settled law that order of suspension is not that of punishment. Requirement of law is that reasons must be mentioned in the order of suspension. In the instant case, reasons have been mentioned in the order of suspension and those are found to be sufficient for ordering suspension of the Petitioner. Enquiry in six cases was pending before the Lokayukt. In one of the cases, charge-sheet had already been issued to the Petitioner and Income fax Department has sent the report to the Government to the effect that Petitioner was possessing the assets disproportionate to his income. In our opinion, these were the grounds which were more than sufficient to order suspension of Petitioner, hence, the