Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak, J.
G.C. Chourasiya (Dr.) v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition No. 29521 of 2022 (Jabalpur); Decided on 6.7.2023
(1) Practice -- record of proceedings made by Court is sacrosanct -- correctness thereof cannot be doubted merely for asking. (2001) 2 SCC 221, (1982) 2 SCC 463 and (1990) 1 SCC 361 followed. [Para 16]
(2) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M. P.) -- R. 9 -- suspension -- order states that petitioner has been placed under suspension by Chief Minister -- no other reason assigned -- whether any enquiry, criminal case/trial were under contemplation or pending was not at all referred, which is sine qua non for placing Government employee under suspension -- authority came to conclusion about alleged conduct/misconduct of petitioner on basis of fact that petitioner was found negligent in his working by Chief Minister -- if competent authority passes order at instance of higher authority, it is vitiated because he had no option but to suspend petitioner -- suspension order set aside. AIR 1952 SC 16, (1989) 2 SCC 505 and (2008) 7 SCC 117 followed. 2011 (1) MPLJ 663 relied on. 2022 (3) JLJ 388 (DB) = 2022 (3) MPLJ 448 referred to. [Para 17 to 20]
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- maintainability of writ petition -- availability of alternative remedy -- impugned order passed at instance of Chief Minister -- important aspect is eclipse of alternative remedy -- if petitioner is relegated for appeal, it would be empty formality and appellate authority would not go contrary to authority who placed petitioner under suspension -- alternative remedy not effective -- petitioner cannot be relegated to file statutory appeal. 2017 SCC Online MP 2170 relied on. AIR 1954 SC 207, AIR 1961 SC 1506, AIR 1961 SC 372 and (1998) 8 SCC 1 referred to. [Paras 25 & 26]
(4) Civil Services -- suspension -- impugned order passed at instance of Chief Minister -- elected representative can certainly recommend for transfer but this is not case of transfer -- when procedure is prescribed in particular manner in statute and in service jurisprudence, it is to be done in that manner only -- every case is to be seen individually – said recommendation must contain public interest -- suspension order set aside. Writ Appeal No. 400 of 2022 decided on 27.4.2022 relied on. (2007) 8 SCC 150 distinguished. (2015) 7 SCC 291 followed. 1992 (Supp.) 1 SCC 222 referred to. [Para 27]
¼1½ çFkk & U;k;ky; }kjk cuk;k x;k dk;Zokgh dk vfÒys[k ikou g¨rk gS & mldh 'kq)rk ij fdlh d¢ dgus ek= ls lansg ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2001½ 2 ,l lh lh 221] ¼1982½ 2 ,l lh lh 463 rFkk ¼1990½ 1 ,l lh lh 361 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 16½
¼2½ flfoy lsok ¼oxÊdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼eŒçŒ½ & fuŒ 9 & fuyacu & vkns'k¨a esa dfFkr fd ;kph d¨ eq[; ea=h }kjk fuyafcr fd;k x;k gS & vU; d¨Ã dkj.k ugha fn;k & bldk d¨Ã funsZ'k ugha fd d¨Ã tkap] nkafMd çdj.k@fopkj.k vuqè;kr ;k yafcr gS] t¨ ljdkjh deZpkjh d¨ fuyafcr djus d¢ fy, vfuok;Z gS & çkfèkdkjh us ;kph d¢ vfÒdfFkr vkpj.k@vopkjd¢ ckjs esa fu"d"kZ bl rF; d¢ vkèkkj ij fudkyk fd eq[; ea=h us ;kph d¨ vius dk;Z esa mis{kkoku ik;k & l{ke çkfèkdkjh ;fn mPprj çkfèkdkjh d¢ dgus ij vkns'k ikfjr djrk gS r¨ og nwf"kr gS D;¨afd mld¢ ikl ;kph d¨ fuyafcr djus d¢ flok; d¨Ã fodYi ugha Fkk & fuyacu vkns'k vikLrA , vkb vkj 1952 ,l lh 16] ¼1989½ 2 ,llhlh 505 rFkk ¼2008½ 7 ,l lh lh 117 vuqlfjrA 2011 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 663 voyafcrA 2022 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 388 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½ % 2022 ¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 448 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 17 ls 20½
¼3½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 & fjV ;kfpdk pyus ;¨X; g¨uk & vkuqdfYid mipkjdh miyCèkrk & vkf{kIr vkns'k eq[; ea=h d¢ dgus ij ikfjr & egRoiw.kZ igyw gS vkuqdyfId mipkjdk çÒkoghu g¨ tkuk & ;kph d¨ vihy d¢ fy, okil Òstk x;k r¨ og d¨jh v©ipkfjdrk g¨xh rFkk vihy çkfèkdkjh ml çkfèkdkjh d¢ foijhr ugha tk,xk] ftlus ;kph d¨ fuyafcr fd;k & vkuqdfYid mipkj çÒkoh ugha & ;kph d¨ dkuwuh vihy djus d¢ fy, okil ugha Òstk tk ldrkA 2017 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,e ih 2170 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1954 ,l lh 207] , vkb vkj 1961 ,l lh 1506] , vkb vkj 1961 ,l lh 372 rFkk ¼1998½ 8 ,l lh lh 1 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 25 ,oa 26½
¼4½ flfoy lsok & fuyacu & vkf{kIr vkns'k eq[; ea=h d¢ dgus ij ikfjr & fuokZfpr çfrfufèk fuf'pr gh LFkkukarj.k dh flQkfj'k dj ldrk gS] ijarq ;g LFkkukarj.k dk ekeyk ugha & tc dkuwu rFkk lsok fofèk 'kkL= esa fof'k"V jhfr esa çfØ;k fofgr gS r¨ mls mlh jhfr esa fd;k tkuk g¨xk & çR;sd ekeys d¨ O;f"V'k% ns[kk tkuk g¨rk gS & mDr flQkfj'k esa y¨d fgr g¨uk vko';d & fuyacu vkns'k vikLrA fjV vihy Øekad 400 lu~ 2022 fu.kÊr fnukad 27-4-2022 voyafcrA ¼2007½ 8 ,l lh lh 150 çÒsfnrA ¼2015½ 7 ,l lh lh 291 vuqlfjrA 1992 ¼lIyhŒ½ 1 ,l lh lh 222 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 27½
ORDER
1. The present petition is preferred by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking following reliefs:
“In view of facts and grounds mentioned above the petitioners prays for following reliefs:
I. to call for the relevant record.
II. to quash the impugned suspension order dated 9.12. 2022 (Annexure P/1) & 12.12.2022 (Annexure P/2) and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as CM&HO, Chhindwara.
III. Any other relief together cost of the petition which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by Additional Director (complaint), Health Services, M.P. whereby petitioner who was working as Radiologist/Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Chhindwara was placed under suspension. Petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2022 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Collector, District Chhindwara whereby in place of petitioner respondent No.3 has been handed over the charge of CMHO, Chhindawara temporarily.
3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is Radiologist and holding Class -I post. Vide order dated 26.6.2020 he took charge of CM&HO in pursuance of order dated 24.6.2020 issued by the Office of respondent No.2.
4. As submitted, on 22-09-2022 at public function at Ramakona, Hon'ble Chief Minister asked from the public in respect of issuance of Ayushman Cards. Someone stood and complained about non issuance of card to him. Reacting on it, immediately petitioner was removed from the post of CMHO by Chief Minister and charge has been given to respondent No.3, who was otherwise working under the petitioner as Block Medical Officer and is junior to him. Incidentally his block showed less progress of preparation of Ayushman Cards but it is the allegation of petitioner that due to high political approach he successfully removed the petitioner from the charge of CMHO.
5. Petitioner assailed the order dated 23.9.2022 by way of Writ Petition No.22256/2022 and vide order dated 10.11.2022 this Court was pleased to stay the order dated 23.9.2022 and petitioner was allowed to work as CMHO, Chhindwara and as pleaded in the petition, the said writ petition bearing No.22256/2022 is pending consideration.
6. It further appears that Hon'ble Chief Minister again visited Chhindwara under Mukhyamantri Jan Sewa Abhiyan on 9.12.2022 and from the stage he announced about the removal of petitioner from the post of CMHO on earlier visit but since petitioner continued to work due to Court order, therefore, in public meeting petitioner was placed under suspension by the Hon'ble Chief Minister which is reflected from the contents of impugned order. Petitioner has placed video clip of said public meeting through DVD and transcript and relevant extract of news item published in local news paper to demonstrate this fact. Therefore, this petition has been preferred directly by the petitioner without approaching the appellate authority against the suspension order.
7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order has been issued by the Hon'ble Chief Minister and being guided by malafides, therefore, order is bad in law. While referring the impugned order he submits that suspension order has not been issued by the competent authority but by the Hon'ble Chief Minister and concerned authority did not apply its mind before passing order.
8. It is further submitted that the impugned suspension order is passed by the incompetent authority i.e. Joint Director (complaint) although by approval of respondent No.2 but the competent authority of petitioner is State Government i.e. Principal Secretary, Public Health Department. Petitioner is placed under suspension on a very vague reason and at the time of suspension neither any enquiry nor criminal case/trial was pending nor was in contemplation, therefore, impu
Suspension orders must reflect independent decision-making by statutory authorities and cannot be arbitrary or merely routine; otherwise, they may violate constitutional rights.
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 by election authority valid for dereliction despite additional duties; no prior hearing required under CCA Rule 31.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointing authority must exercise independent discretion when issuing a suspension order, as required by Regulation 4(1) of the Regulatio....
The impugned suspension order was passed by an incompetent authority, and its subsequent ratification by the first respondent was unsustainable in law, emphasizing the principle that when the Act pre....
The employer's power to suspend an employee during disciplinary proceedings must be justified by material evidence, especially after significant delays.
Notification and the enunciation of law in the afore-extracted order, would all lead to an unmistakable conclusion that the Commissioner is not the competent authority to place the petitioner under s....
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
