Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul and Dwarkadhish Bansal, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Another v. Satya Narayan Dubey
Writ Appeal No. 447 of 2022 (Jabalpur): against the
interlocutory order dated 19.4.2022 passed in
W. P. No. 26621/2021; Decided on 13.5.2022
(1) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M. P.) -- S. 2 (1) -- maintainability of writ appeal -- writ appeal against interlocutory order -- interim order staying suspension order -- effect of staying order of suspension is that writ petition stands allowed at initial stage itself -- therefore, writ appeal against interim order staying suspension order is maintainable. 2011 (2) MPLJ 206 and 2007 (3) JLJ 187 (FB) relied on. [Para 19
(2) Civil Services -- suspension -- writ petition -- interim order staying suspension order -- writ appeal maintainable against such interim order. 2011 (2) MPLJ 206 and 2007 (3) JLJ 187 (FB) relied on. [Para 19
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 226/227 -- scope of judicial review -- suspension -- scope of judicial review against suspension order is very limited. [Para 21
(4) Constitution of India -- Art. 226/227 -- scope of judicial review -- suspension -- whether charges are baseless, malicious or vindictive, cannot be gone into at stage of examining validity of suspension order. 1993 (Supp.) 3 SCC 483 and 2014 (3) MPLJ 117 followed. (1994) 4 SCC 126 and 2011 (2) MPLJ 206 relied on.
[Para 22
(5) Civil Services -- suspension -- employee can be placed under suspension on consideration of public interest is also -- merely because it is not alleged that department has suffered any loss, employee does not get any immunity from suspension. 2011 (2) MPLJ 206 relied on. (1979) 2 SCC 286 distinguished. [Para 25
(6) Constitution of India -- Art. 226/227 -- Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M. P.) -- R. 9 (1) (a) -- scope of judicial review -- suspension -- stay -- if respondent, a senior officer, is reinstated by staying suspension order, he can scuttle inquiry or investigation or can win over witnesses of departmental inquiry -- within province of disciplinary authority to decide whether employee is required to be suspended or not -- not justified to ask for sufficient material on strength of which suspension order can be justified -- it amounts to conducting roving inquiry -- clearly mentioned in charges that respondent’s involvement cannot be ruled out -- whether or not employer will be able to establish it in inquiry, is not subject matter of adjudication at this stage. (1999) 3 SCC 679 and (2013) 16 SCC 147 followed. (1994) 4 SCC 126 and (2015) 7 SCC 291 referred to. [Para 26
¼1½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2 ¼1½ && fjV vihy pykus ;ksX; gksuk && varorhZ vkns'k ds fo#) fjV vihy && fuyacu vkns'k ij jksd dk varfje vkns'k && fuyacu vkns'k jksdus dk izHkko ;g gS fd fjV ;kfpdk vkjafHkd izØe ij gh eatwj gks xbZ && blfy,] fuyacu vkns'k ij jksd ds varfje vkns'k ds fo#) fjV vihy pykus ;ksX; gSA 2011¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 206 rFkk 2007 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 187 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 19
¼2½ flfoy lsok && fuyacu && fjV ;kfpdk && fuyacu vkns'k ij jksd dk varfje vkns'k && ,sls varfje vkns'k ds fo#) fjV vihy pykus ;ksX;A 2011 ¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 206 rFkk 2007 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 187 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 19
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226@227 && U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr && fuyacu && vkns'k ds fo#) U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr vR;f/kd lhfer gSA ¼iSjk 21
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226@227 && U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr && fuyacu && fuyacu vkns'k dh fof/kekU;rk ds ijh{k.k ds izØe ij bl ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd vkjksi vk/kkjghu] }s"kiw.kZ ;k izfr'kks/kkRed gSa ;k ughaA 1993 ¼lIyh-½3 ,l lh lh 483 rFkk ¼1994½4 ,l lh lh 126 vuqlfjrA 2014¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 117 rFkk 2011 ¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 206 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 22
¼5½ flfoy lsok && fuyacu && yksdfgr ij fopkj dj ds Hkh deZpkjh fuyafcr fd;k tk ldrk gS && ek= blfy, fd ;g vfHkdfFkr ugha gS fd foHkkx dks dksbZ gkfu gqbZ] deZpkjh fuyacu ls mUeqDr ugha gks tkrkA 2011 ¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 206 voyafcrA ¼1979½2 ,l lh lh 286 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 25
¼6½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226@227 && flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 9 ¼1½ ¼d½ && U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr && fuyacu && jksd && ;fn izR;FkhZ dks] tks T;s"B vf/kdkjh gS] fuyacu vkns'k jksd dj ;FkkiwoZ fd;k tkrk gS rks og tk¡p ;k vUos"k.k foQy dj ldrk gS vFkok foHkkxh; tk¡p ds lkf{k;ksa dks euk ldrk gS && deZpkjh dks fuyafcr djuk vko';d gS ;k ugha] ;g fofuf'pr djuk vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh dk dk;Z{ks= gS && ,slh i;kZIr lkexzh dh ek¡x djuk U;k;iw.kZ ugha ftlds vk/kkj ij fuyacu vkns'k U;k;ksfpr Bgjk;k tk lds && ;g vfrxkeh tk¡p djus ds leku gksxk && vkjksiksa esa Li"V mfYyf[kr fd izR;FkhZ dh lafyIrrk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk && fu;kstd mls tk¡p esa fl) dj ik,xk ;k ugha] ;g bl izØe ij U;k;fu.kZ;u dh fo"k;oLrq ughaA ¼1999½3 ,l lh lh 679 rFkk ¼2013½16 ,l lh lh 147 vuqlfjrA¼1994½4 ,l lh lh 126 rFkk ¼2015½7 ,l lh lh 291 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 26
JUDGMENT (Oral)
Paul, J. -- 1. This intra Court appeal takes exception to the interlocutory order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.4.2022 passed in W.P. No.26621/2021 whereby the effect and operation of order of suspension dated 13.8.2021 and the appellate order rejecting the appeal dated 12.11.2021 (Annexure P/13) are stayed by the learned Single Judge.
2. At the outset, learned Deputy Advocate General placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (2) MPLJ 206 [State of M.P. v. Ashok Sharma (Dr.)] to contend that against the interim order staying the suspension order, a writ appeal is indeed maintainable.
3. Shri Amit Seth, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants/State submits that under Rule 9(1)(a) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 (in short, ‘CCA Rules’), an employee can be placed under suspension by the competent authority, if inquiry, investigation or trial is pending against him.
4. Indisputably, in the instant case, the suspension order is passed by a Competent Authority and one of the ingredient on which an employee can be placed under suspension is certainly satisfied.
5. Criticizing the order of learned Single Judge, the stand of appellants/State is that the learned Single Judge has entered into the merits of the case and recorded findings as under :-
(i) Order of suspension of the respondent is without application of mind.
(ii) There is no material available with the Department to show direct relation of the writ petitioner with the alleged irregularity as under which provision of law, the duty is cast on the writ petitioner to keep a check on the price of liquor being sold by the Department is not known ?
(iii) Acts/omissions on the part of the respondent has not caused any financial loss to the State exchequer.
(iv) No mate rial has been supplied to the writ petitioner with the charge sheet to show involvement of the writ petitioner in the charges levelled against him.
(v) There is no possibility of the respondent influencing departmental witnesses in the on -going Departmental Enquiry.
(vi) The appellate authority had not considered the aspect that the order of suspension passed by the disciplinary authority is without application of mind.
6. To elaborate, Shri Amit Seth, learned Deputy Advocate General urged that it was not open to the learned Single Judge to either examine the correctness of the allegations or to examine whether there exits sufficient material to place the employee under suspension. This is the prerogative of the Competent Authority to place the employee under suspension and rely on the adverse material at appropriate occasion. The learned Single Judge has gone wrong while entering into the merits of the case.
7. Learned Deputy Advocate General placed reliance on the circular dated 27.5.2018 (Annexure WA-2) and argued that although this circular was not placed for consideration before learned Single Judge, language of the same is reproduced in the charge sheet dated 13.10.2021. The relevant rule/executive instruction can be very well be relied upon by the employer at appropriate stage. This circular makes it clear that it was the duty of the present respondent to take into account the illegal activities of liquor shopkeepers on regular/daily basis. The liquor shops were required to be continuously monitored. The respondent has miserably failed to undertake the same.
8. Thus, while placing the respondent under suspension his involvement in such things was not ruled out. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge should not have stayed the suspension order. Moreso, when in the first round of litigation in W.P. No.15518/2021 decided on 27.8.2021, the learned Single Judge has given following findings :
“7. Perused the orders and considered the principles which are laid down in the aforesaid cases. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the order dated 1
Suspension of a government servant must be based on serious allegations and objective consideration, with documented reasoning to prevent arbitrariness.
Point of law: seriousness and gravity of the misconduct contemplated to be enquired into and the material i.e., voice messages along with the complaint by the complainant Anil Proddaturu and recordin....
Suspension orders must reflect independent decision-making by statutory authorities and cannot be arbitrary or merely routine; otherwise, they may violate constitutional rights.
Suspension orders must be based on objective evidence of a departmental inquiry, not merely on preliminary inquiries.
When an administrative decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or it shocks conscious of Court in a sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards, power of judicial re....
The suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, and the power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner.
Point of Law : Mandate of an outer limit of 3 (three) months is only for the purpose of drawing up a departmental proceeding and the requirement to undertake an exercise of review prior to the said p....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
