IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN th ON THE 5 OF MARCH, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 4814 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

MAHENDRA BOPCHE S/O DAMANLAL BOPCHE, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT TEACHER O/O GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL NAHARTOLA KAMTHI TEHSIL KATANGI DISTRICT BALAGHAT AND R/O VILLAGE NANDORA TUMSA ROAD KATANGI TEHSIL KATANGI DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SHISHIR KUMAR SONI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COMMISSIONER LOK SIKSHAN SANCHANALAYA BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.) THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER.

3. COLLECTOR BALAGHAT DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER BALAGHAT DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. SANKUL PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT EXCELLENCE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KATANGI TEHSIL KATANGI DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SUBODH KATHAR - ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR following:

ORDER

The present petition has been challenging the order of suspension Annexure P/1 dated 17.03.2020 whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the allegation of having posted some indecent photographs in official Whatsapp group.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order of suspension Annexure P/1 submits that the suspension was under Rule 9(2- b) and if the disciplinary authority fails to issue charge-sheet upon suspension of the government servant in every case of suspension under Rule 9 (1-a) then the suspension order is deemed to be revoked. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet in the present case has been issued on 26.02.2021 which is after a period of almost 11 months from the date of suspension, thus, the suspension order is deemed to have been revoked and thus, this court should interfere in the suspension order Annexure P/1.

3. An alternative prayer is made that the representation of the petitioner for revocation of suspension should be considered in terms of circular of GAD place on record as Annexure P/11.

4. Learned counsel for the State has supported the suspension order and also submitted that the person whose indecent photographs posted in offical Whatsapp group has lodged FIR under Section 376 and 354 of IPC and other criminal provisions against the petitioner and challan has been be filed before the concerning Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR record.

6 . So far as the arguments that the suspension order being automatically revoked on account of non-issuance of charge-sheet within 45 days or 90 days, it is evident from the proviso of Rule 9(2-a) that the said provision is in respect of the suspension made under Rule 9(1)(a) i.e. where the disciplinary proceedings against an employee is pending or contemplated. In the present case though the suspension order does not speak about the FIR or presentation of the challan against the petitioner but the fact remains that subsequently an FIR under Section 376 and 354 of IPC and other criminal provisions has been registered against the petitioner in which challan has been filed on 28.05.2020 against the petitioner and trial is said to be still pending

7. It cannot be disputed that offence under Section 376 and 354 of IPC are the offence involving moral turpitude. As per first proviso of Rule 9(1) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. It is provided that the Government servant shall invariably be placed under suspension when a challan for a criminal offence involving corruption or other moral turpitude is filed against government servant.

8. In the present case, the challan has been filed against the petitioner and though the charge-sheet consequence to suspension of the petitioner was n