ORDER

1. Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, on their joint request, it is finally heard.

2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the assail is made to an order dated 4.4.2025 (Annexure-P/11) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

3. As per facts of the case, the petitioner being an in-charge Principal was performing his duties at Government Shaheed Bhagat Singh P.G. College, Pipariya. However, during the course of evaluation of answersheets, certain irregularities were noticed and made viral on social media and thereafter, an enquiry was conducted wherein statements of various persons were recorded and then, the Enquiry Committee submitted its report vide letter dated 3.4.2025 disclosing the fact that the answer-sheets, which were to be evaluated by one Ms. Khusbhu Pagare, Guest Faculty, got evaluted by one Pannalal Pathariya, Lab Technician Class-IV employee. The enquiry report further revealed the fact that Ms. Khusbhu Pagare, in her statement, had admitted the fact that for evaluating the answer-sheets on her behalf, she had given a sum of Rs.7000/- to one Rakesh Kumar Maiher and even, Rakesh Kumar Maiher, in his statement, had also admitted the fact that in lieu of evaluation of answer-sheets, he had given Rs.5000/- to Pannalal Pathariya. Concluding the enquiry report, prima facie, the Enquiry Committee held the petitioner and one Dr. Ramgulam Patel, Professor, Political Science, guilty for the alleged irregularity. In pursuance of the report submitted by the Enquiry Committee, respondent No.2, exercising the power provided under rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules, 1966 (in short the ‘Rules, 1966’), has passed the impugned order of suspension dated 4.4.2025.

4. The challenge to the impugned order is founded mainly on the ground that the order has been passed in a very mechanical manner that too without applying the mind. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that without there being any fault on the part of the petitioner and his direct involvement in the alleged irregularity, his suspension is improper. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various orders viz. (2013) 7 SCC 25 [State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Sanjay Nagayach and others]; Writ Petition No.14716 of 2017 [Nahid Jahan(Smt.) v. State of M.P. & ors.] and 2020 (4) MPLJ 382 [Neerja Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and others].

5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the petition saying that since the impugned order is appellable, therefore, the petitioner should have availed the remedy of appeal as provided under rule 23 of the rules, 1966. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a case reported in 2011 (2) MPLJ 206 [State of M.P. and others v. Ashok Sharma(Dr.)] and also an order dated 29.6.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.13992 of 2018 [Dr. Anand Mahindra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh].

6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. So far as the preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of present petition is concerned, I am of the opinion that there is no absolute bar for entertaining the instant petition. However, in the case of Ashok Sharma (Dr.) (supra), it has been observed by the Division Bench that in the matter of suspension, normally, the Court exercising the power provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not stay the order because it amounts to final relief and rather doing so, it would be appropriate to direct the person concerned to challenge the order by availing the statutory remedy of appeal. In the case of Anand Mahindra (supra), the coordinate Bench rely