Suspension orders must reflect independent decision-making by statutory authorities and cannot be arbitrary or merely routine; otherwise, they may violate constitutional rights.

ORDER :

Sujoy Paul, J.

This petition takes exception to the order dated 18-4-2023 whereby the petitioner, Principal, Government Ayurvedic College, Burhanpur is placed under suspension.

2. In short, the admitted facts between the parties are that after placing the petitioner under suspension on 18-4-2023, the Department has issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 14-7-2023 (Annexure IA-1) filed with I.A.No. 15567 of 2023. The case of petitioner is that suspension order does not contain any reason for placing the petitioner under suspension. It is passed in a routine manner without application of mind. Subsequently, while issuing the charge-sheet, certain subsequent events were taken into account which were not available at the time of issuance of suspension order and therefore, suspension order is liable to be interfered with.

3. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner by reading all the charges one by one urged that none of the charges are so grave which requires suspension of the petitioner. For stale allegations, petitioner is placed under suspension. He placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in (1994) 4 SCC 126, State of Orissa vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty and judgment of this Court in Smt. Nahid Jahan vs. State of M.P. and others , W.P. No. 14176 of 2017) Lastly, it is submitted that return shows that petitioner is placed under suspension as per the direction of the concerned Minister. Thus, petitioner has no efficacious alternative remedy and suspending a Class-I Officer on the dictate of Minister is unknown to service jurisprudence. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Dr. G.C. Chourasiya vs. State of M.P. and others , W.P. No. 29521 of 2022.

4. Sounding a contra note, Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Government Advocate supported the suspension order and urged that the impugned order is appealable and hence, this petition may not be entertained. At this stage, there is no occasion for this Court to examine the correctness or gravity of the charges.

5. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

6. Parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated hereinabove.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

8. The suspension order dated 18-4-2023 (Annexure P-2) was assailed by contending that it does not contain any reason and there is no mention that any departmental enquiry/criminal case is either pending or contemplated. A plain reading of the order dated 18-4-2023 shows that the petitioner is placed under suspension by alleging dereliction/negligence in performing the duties. In (2000) 10 SCC 162, Punjab National Bank vs. D. M. Amarnath , the Apex Court opined that it is not necessary to mention in the suspension order that disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated.

9. This is trite that the order of suspension is an administrative order and not an order passed in exercise of any quasi judicial power (See: Pratap Singh vs. State of Punjab , AIR 1964 SC 72 ). In view of the principles laid down in these judgments, suspension order cannot be interfered with merely because it is silent about departmental enquiry. However, as noticed above, some reason about negligence in performing duties has been assigned for placing the petitioner under suspension. Thus, this argument must fail.

10. The next question is regarding availability of alternative remedy. No doubt, as per M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)