The validity of the petitioner's suspension under Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services Rules, 1966, and the requirement to exhaust available appeal remedies before seeking judicial intervention.

K.K. Trivedi, J.

The petitioner, who was at the relevant time posted as Registrar, Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vishwavidyalaya, Rewa (hereinafter referred to as the University for brevity), has initially challenged the order dated 28.03.2014, by which the respondent No. 1/State Government has placed him under suspension in terms of provisions of Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1966 for brevity) on various grounds. It is contended that only to circumvent the orders passed by this Court on earlier occasion, the order of suspension has been issued against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that since he was posted on deputation and that deputation was curtailed by the respondent-State, a writ petition was required to be filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No. 3618/2014. This Court has admitted the aforesaid writ petition and has granted an interim stay to the petitioner. However, since the respondent-State was not happy with such an action taken by the petitioner, the order impugned of suspension was issued.

2. During pendency of the writ petition, since a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, assailing the said charge sheet also, an amendment has been made in the writ petition and by way of amended pleadings, the charge sheet dated 19.4.2014 and 29.5.2014 are also called in question. An application was made by the petitioner stating that since he was on deputation under the provisions of Rule 20 of the Rules of 1966, the petitioner could not have been placed under suspension by the State Government. Detailed hearing of the said application was done on 17.10.2014 and since it was found that the petitioner being a Government Officer was governed by the Rules of 1966 and could have been placed under suspension even when he was on deputation, in exercise of the power under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1966, such a prayer of the petitioner was rejected. Notably, this order has not been called in question anywhere nor has been set aside by any higher forum, therefore, the same has attained finality. The issue raised by the petitioner in these circumstances relating to the authority and jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 in placing the petitioner under suspension is not required to be tested once again.

3. Indeed, while the order of repatriation was challenged by the petitioner and an interim stay was granted by this Court, the State Government has passed an order on 27.5.2014 cancelling the said order, as a result, challenge to the said order in Writ Petition No. 3618/2014 has come to an end. Even before cancellation of that order, on account of certain irregularities pointed out, if the competent authority has issued an order of suspension, the allegation of malafides cannot be sustained. Further, the authorities against whom allegations of malafides are made, are not impleaded by name as a party to show any personal bias of any higher officials of the State against the petitioner. In absence of such specific grounds, allegations of malafides are not to be looked into. The petition is, thus, not maintainable on this count.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is holding a lien on the substantive post in the Government Department which post is squarely covered by the Rules of 1966. The power to place any person under suspension under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1966 is available to the appointing authority or any authority which is higher to the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority. It is not the case of the petitioner that none of those authorities have issued the order of suspension and, therefore, it cannot be said to be violative or de hors the Rules and is, therefore, not amenable to a challenge in the writ petition directly specifically under the circumstances when an appeal against such an order is provided under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1966, wherein it is specifically provided that an appeal can be preferre