ORDER

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

(i) That, the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure P/1) be directed to be quashed.

(ii) That, it may be held that the impugned order of suspension was based on mala fide on the part of respondent No.3.

(iii) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13.4.2022, whereby, the petitioner who is holding the post of Madhyamik Shikshak in Government Higher Secondary School, Johariya, District Datia has been placed under suspension alleging that the order of suspension is with an ulterior motive as the petitioner has made complaint against the respondent No. 3 i.e. Collector, District Datia in respect of various irregularities and illegalities committed by him and also since the petitioner belongs to OBC category, he is being victimized.

3. Short facts of the case are that petitioner is working of Madhyamik Shikshak in Government Higher Secondary School, Johariya, District Datia and is also District Secretary in M.P. Rajya Karamchari Sangh, which is recognized body of the State of M.P. The petitioner, in the capacity of Secretary of the aforesaid union, has made certain complaints against respondent No. 3/Collector with regard to certain irregularities and illegalities committed by him and in that context keeping grudge over the petitioner, the impugned suspension order was passed.

4. The Government Advocate at the outset pointed out that the said order of suspension is an appeallable order under rule 23 (iii) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules, 1966') and since alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, the present petition is not maintainable.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order submits that though the appeal is provided against the order of suspension, since the challenge to the suspension order is on the ground of mala fide, therefore, the present petition is maintainable. In that context, to bolster his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujrat reported in (1997) 7 SCC 622. He has placed reliance on para 23 of the aforesaid judgment which reads as under:-

"23. In the performance of this Study, if the authority in whom the discretion is vested under the Statute, does not act independently and passes an order under the instructions and orders of another authority, the Court would intervene in the matter, quash the orders and issue a mandamus to that authority to exercise its own discretion."

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

7. Admittedly, the order of suspension is an appealable order and as per rule 23 (iii) of the Rules, 1966, the petitioner is having alternative and efficacious remedy available to him, but instead of availing the said remedy of appeal, this petition had been filed. So far as reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (Supra) it is misplaced as it is based on entirely different factual scenario and has no implication in the present matter also it is passed by an authority, who is superior in rank to the authority who had send the proposal, thus, the apprehension of the petitioner that the impugned order is passed under his instructions and influence is misconceived and misplaced.

8. In view of the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. Petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.