2025 Supreme(MP) 521

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Vivek Jain, J.
Rajesh Raikwar – Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.20531 of 2025
Decided On : 29-07-2025

IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The suspension of a public officer must not be influenced by political pressures, and proper authority must be established to validate such actions.

Headnote:

¼1½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 & fjV ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; gksuk & vkuqdfYid mipkj dh miyC/krk & rhu foèkk;d¨a }kjk ;kph d¢ fuyacu dh ek¡x dh xà & ftys ds çÒkjh ea=h d¨ çLrko vxzsf"kr fd;k x;k & lgdkfjrk ea=h us mls fVIi.ki= ij vij eq[; lfpo d¨ vxzsf"kr fd;k & og cSad d¢ çcaèk funs'kd d¨ vxzsf"kr fd;k x;k & rc çcaèk funs'kd }kjk ;kph d¨ fuyafcr fd;k x;k & ;g ugÈ dgk tk ldrk fd lgdkjh l¨lkbVh vfèkfu;e] 1960 dh èkkjk 55¼2½ d¢ vèkhu 'kfä dk ç;¨x djrs gq, la;qä jftLVªkj ;k èkkjk 77¼14½ d¢ vèkhu 'kfä dk ç;¨x djrs gq, vfèkdj.k çÒkfor ugÈ g¨axs & ;kph dks fuyafcr djus dk fu.kZ; fdlh vkSj us ugha cfYd lgdkfjrk ea=h us fy;k & blfy, èkkjk 55¼2½ ;k 77¼14½ d¢ vèkhu la;qä jftLVªkj ;k vfèkdj.k d¢ le{k tkuk çÒkoh mipkj ugÈ & vfèkdj.k dh Lora=rk d¢ lacaèk esa ;kph d¢ eu esa lansg fujkèkkj ugÈ & ;kfpdk xzg.k dh xÃA ¼1985½ 4 ,llhlh 417 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14 ls 20½
¼2½ U;k; & fl)kar & U;k; fd;k gh ugha tkuk pkfg, cfYd fd;k x;k çrhr Hkh g¨uk pkfg,A ¼iSjk 19 ,oa 20½
¼3½ ftyk lgdkjh d¢Uæh; cSad e;kZŒ lsok;qä¨a d¢ ¼fu;¨tu] fucaèku rFkk dk;ZfLFkfr½ lsok fu;e] 2014 ¼eŒçŒ½ & fuŒ 47-1-8 rFkk 47-1-20 & vopkj & vf’k"V Òk"kk dk mi;ksx djus ds dkj.k ;kph fuyafcr & ;kph us cSad d¢ deZpkjh dks cSad dh vU; 'kk[kk esa LFkkukarfjr fd;k &LFkkukarj.k jn~n djus d¢ fy, efgyk foèkk;d us nwjHkk"k ij ;kph ij ncko Mkyk & ;kph us euk dj fn;k & rc rhu foèkk;d¨a us bl vk/kkj ij ;kph d¢ fuyacu dh ek¡x dh fd ;kph us efgyk foèkk;d ls vf’k"V Òk"kk dk mi;ksx fd;k & ftyk çÒkjh ea=h] lgdkfjrk ea=h rFkk vij eq[; lfpo us bl çLrko dh vuq'ka"kk dh & rc çcaèk lapkyd us ;kph d¨ fuyafcr fd;k & fVIi.ki= esa m)`r Òk"kk vf’k"Vrk dh d¨fV esa ugÈ vkrh & ;g tulk/kj.k dh f'kdk;r dk ekeyk ugÈ & LFkkukarj.k jn~n djus dh foèkk;d dh ek¡x ekuus ls ;kph }kjk euk fd, tkus ls foèkk;d d¢ vge~ d¨ Bsl igq¡ph & fuyacu vkns'k 'kfä ds ijs] i{kikr&çsfjr rFkk foèkk;d d¢ dgus ij ikfjr & vikLr fd;kA ¼2007½ 8 ,llhlh 170] ¼2016½ ,llhlh vkWuykbu xqokŒ 660 rFkk ,vkbvkj 1952 ,llh 16 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 29 ls 35½

(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- maintainability of writ petition -- availability of alternative remedy -- suspension of petitioner demanded by three MLAs -- proposal forwarded to in-charge Minister of District -- Cooperative Minister forwarded it on note sheet to Additional Chief Secretary -- same forwarded to Managing Director of Bank -- then petitioner suspended by Managing Director -- it cannot be said that Joint Registrar exercising powers under section 55(2) or Tribunal exercising powers under section 77(14) of Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 would not be influenced -- decision to suspend petitioner taken by none other than Cooperative Minister -- therefore approach under section 55(2) or 77(14) before Joint Registrar or Tribunal not efficacious remedy -- doubt in mind of petitioner regarding independance of Tribunal not unfounded -- petition entertained. (1985) 4 SCC 417 followed. [Paras 14 to 20]

(2) Justice -- principles -- justice should not only be done bul but should also seem to be done. [Paras 19 & 20]

(3) Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Ltd. Sevayukton Ke (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Karya Sthiti) Service Rules, 2014 (M.P.) -- Rr. 47.1.8 and 47.1.20 -- misconduct -- petitioner suspended for using indecent language -- petitioner transferred bank employee to another branch of bank -- lady MLA pressurised petitioner on telephone for cancellation of transfer -- refused by petitioner -- then suspension of petitioner demanded by three MLAs on ground that petitioner used indecent language against lady MLA -- such proposal recommended by in-charge Minister of District, Cooperative Minister and Additional Chief Secretary -- then Managing Director suspended petitioner -- language quoted in note sheet does not amount to indecency -- it is not a case of general public grievance -- ego of MLA hurt by refusal of petitioner to accept her demand of cancellation of transfer -- suspension order passed in excess of power, actuated by bias and at behest of MLA -- quashed. (2007) 8 SCC 170, (2016) SCC Online Gau. 660 and AIR 1952 SC 16 referred to. [Paras 29 to 35]

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenged suspension based on alleged misconduct. (Para 1)

ORDER :

Vivek Jain, J.

By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is calling in question the order of suspension Annexure-P/1 mentioning therein that the petitioner has misbehaved and used unparliamentary language against a lady member of Legislative Assembly (who is not being named in the present order) so also against the In-charge Minister of the District and Minister of Cooperatives.

2. It is contended that using/uttering such words against the respective people’s representative is alleged to be a misconduct in terms of Clause 47 of Service Regulations of the Bank and, therefore, the petitioner has been placed under suspension and his Head Quarters has been fixed at Principal Office of the Bank at Bhopal. The petitioner was posted as Chief Executive Officer of District Central Cooperative Bank, Sidhi, at the time of suspension.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the suspension of the petitioner is actuated by ulterior motive and only to satisfy the alter ego of MLAs of the district and nothing else. It is contended that the petitioner was the Chief Executive Officer of the Central Cooperative Bank of District Sidhi and as per the service rules of the Bank, he was competent and having full authority to transfer any of the employees of the bank. In continuation of which, the petitioner has transferred one Ashok Sharma, Clerk, from Gandhi Gram Branch to Sidhi Branch of the Bank.

4. The lady MLA on the same day i.e. 26.05.2025 had called up the petitioner on phone immediately after the transfer order was issued by the petitioner and scolded him saying that why he has transferred a Branch Manager within her assembly area and when the petitioner told the reasons behind such transfer, then she scolded him saying that why she was not taken in confidence before transferring an employee from her assembly area and the petitioner very decently informed the said MLA that the said person namely Ashok Sharma has been transferred by exercising power within his jurisdiction, but the MLA insisted upon the petitioner and pressurized him to cancel the said transfer order. However, still the petitioner was placed under suspension for allegedly using unparliamentary language against the said MLA so also the In-charge Minister of the District and the Cooperative Minister of the State.

5. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned suspension order is actuated by malice in law and passed only to satisfy the ego of local MLA of the district and nothing else and therefore, the impugned suspension order is nothing but an abuse of powers by the appointing authority which has to be declared illegal and arbitrary.

6. Per contra, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the Registrar under Section 55(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (‘Act of 1960’ for short) and the concerned Registrar for the respondent/Bank would be the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies. In alternative, the petitioner can also approach the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’ for brevity) which is having a general supervisory power under Section 77(14) of the Act of 1960, which provides as under.

“77(14) The Tribunal may sue motto or on the application of a party, call for and examine the record of any proceedings in which no appeal lies to it, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed. If in any case, it appears to the Tribunal that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled or reversed, the Tribunal may pass such order thereon as in may deem just.”

7. It is contended that the power of the Tribunal under Section 77(14) of the Act of 1960, can be exercised either suo motu or on an application of a party an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document