This petition takes exception to the order dated 18/04/2023

whereby the petitioner, Principal, Government Ayurvedic College,

Burhanpur is placed under suspension.

In short, the admitted facts between the parties are that after

placing the petitioner under suspension on 18/04/2023, the Department

has issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 14/07/2023 (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,

- 3 -

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 18.04.2023 (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 18.04.2023

shows that the petitioner is placed under suspension by alleging

dereliction / negligence in performing the duties. In (2000) 10 SCC

162 (Punjab National Bank v. 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.

- 4 -

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) Rules, 1966 (CCA Rules) the order of suspension is

appealable. In the instant case, the respondents in order dated 3^rd May,

2023 (Annexure R-3) mentioned about the allegations/reasons on the

strength of which action has been taken against the petitioner. One

such reason is that the Hon’ble Minister, Aayush has directed to place

the petitioner under suspension. In this backdrop, the question whether

the petitioner should be relegated to avail the appellate remedy is

ponderable. The suspension ord