Devendra Sharma vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 - Rule 9 - M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 - Rules 3(1), 3A and 20 - Suspension of government employee - Routine suspension vs reasoned order - Right to approach court for judicial remedy - Misconduct - Whether filing a writ petition against administrative order constitutes misconduct - Whether seeking permission to commit suicide constitutes misconduct - Suspension is an interim measure intended to keep the delinquent away from the range of mischief to ensure unhindered proceedings and is not a punishment (Paras 9, 10) - Order of suspension must be reasoned and not passed whimsically or routinely (Paras 13, 14) - Right to judicial remedies for redressal of personal grievances is a constitutional right and cannot be deemed misconduct or a failure to maintain integrity and devotion to duty (Paras 19, 20).

(B) Conduct Rules - Vindication of acts - Rule 20 prohibits recourse to court for vindication of official acts subject to adverse criticism; however, challenging an administrative order regarding assignment of duties does not amount to vindication of official acts and thus does not constitute misconduct (Paras 18-20).

(C) Devotion to duty - Seeking permission to commit suicide due to work allocation may be viewed as an act of creating pressure on superiors and may amount to discourteous behavior or lack of devotion to duty, thereby constituting misconduct (Paras 23-24).

Facts of the case:
A government employee was placed under suspension and served with a charge sheet containing two charges: first, challenging the authority of a superior by filing a writ petition against an administrative order of duty allocation, and second, seeking permission to commit suicide due to difficulties faced in the assigned work.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the suspension must be reconsidered in light of government circulars and legal principles emphasizing that it should not be routine. Regarding the charges, the act of approaching the court for redressal of a grievance is a constitutional right and cannot be termed as misconduct. However, the allegation of seeking permission to commit suicide prima facie denotes discourteous behavior and lacks devotion to duty.

Issues: (i) Whether the suspension order was passed routinely without application of mind. (ii) Whether filing a writ petition against an administrative order constitutes misconduct under the Conduct Rules. (iii) Whether seeking permission to commit suicide amounts to misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi: Suspension is a disabling measure, not a punishment, and must be based on a reasoned opinion that the employee needs to be kept away from the workplace. The constitutional right to seek judicial remedy cannot be the subject of a departmental inquiry as it does not amount to misconduct. Conversely, behavior that pressures superiors or indicates a lack of devotion to duty can be classified as misconduct.

Result: Writ petition challenging suspension disposed of with direction to reconsider suspension; writ petition challenging charge sheet allowed in part and charge no. 1 quashed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Government servant suspended and charge-sheeted after earlier disciplinary proceedings were stayed by court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )

2. Petitioner argued suspension and charge sheet were mala fide and not warranted. Respondents argued actions were valid under rules and charges constituted misconduct. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )

3. Court directed reconsideration of suspension order and quashed first charge, allowing proceedings only on second charge. (Para 25 )

4. What are the requirements for placing a government servant under suspension?

The authority must form a reasoned opinion that the allegations warrant major penalty or that the employee should be kept away; suspension should not be ordered routinely and requires application of mind. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )

5. Does filing a writ petition by a government servant challenging an administrative order constitute misconduct?

No, approaching court is a constitutional right; it does not amount to vindication of an official act under Rule 20 of Conduct Rules or misconduct, as held in Vijay Shankar Pandey. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )

6. Does seeking permission to commit suicide by a government servant amount to misconduct?

It may prima facie constitute discourteous behavior and lack of devotion to duty under Conduct Rules, and therefore cannot be said not to amount to misconduct at the charge-sheet stage. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )

ORDER :

ASHISH SHROTI, J.

The petitioner has filed W.P. No.21228/2025 challenging the order dated 06.06.2025 passed by respondent no.2, whereby he has been placed under suspension. Further, W.P. No.29518/2025 has been filed challenging the charge sheet, dated 14.07.2025. Since, both the cases relate to same petitioner and involve similar facts, they are being decided by this common order.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Bull Attendar, a Class-IV post, in Animal Husbandry and Dairy Department on 13.01.1995. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, (AVFO) vide order dated 07.08.2019 and was posted in the office of respondent no.4.

3. The petitioner has alleged that earlier a charge-sheet was issued to him on 12.12.2024 based upon certain old and stale charges. He challenged the said charge-sheet before this Court in W.P. No.272/2025, whereby this Court has stayed further proceedings pursuant to the said charge-sheet vide order dated 09.01.2025. It is his case that being annoyed with the aforesaid act of the petitioner, respondent no.2 initiated proceedings with malafide intention.

4. The petitioner has contended that vide order dated 09.01.2025, a three member committee was constituted by the order of Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gwalior, stated to be approved by Gwalior Collector, in order to enquire into certain allegations of fraudulent withdrawal of Government money. He challenged this order before this Court in W.P. No.2140/2025, wherein also further proceeding was stayed by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2025.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was earlier discharging the work in Computer Cell, procurement of stationery and uniforms, promotional materials etc. Vide order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure P/7) passed by respondent no.4, said work was withdrawn from him and was given to one Mr. Vinod Kumar Jayant, Assistant Grande-III. The petitioner was directed to work in the Mobile Veterinary Unit. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order also challenged the same before this Court in W.P. No.6122/2025. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 07.03.2025 directing the respondent – Director to consider the grievance of the petitioner and take decision in the matter. It is alleged by petitioner that the respondent no.2, under the garb of complying with the Court order, passed the impugned order dated 06.06.2025, wherein not only his representation is rejected but he has been placed under suspension also. Subsequently, a charge sheet has been issued to him on 14.07.2014. Challenging the order of suspension and the charge sheet, these two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned suspension of the petitioner is the outcome of malafide attitude of respondent no.3 (respondent no.2/ Director impleaded in personal capacity as respondent no.3) inasmuch as he is annoyed with the petitioner's approaching this Court time and again. It is his submission that the suspension of the petitioner is made in routine manner and once the proceedings with regard to charge-sheet dated 12.12.2024 was stayed by this Court, the petitioner could not have been placed under suspension. The learned counsel further submitted that vide order dated 07.03.2025, this Court only directed respondent no.2 to consider the petitioner's grievance and pass necessary order. However, under the garb of complying with the Court order, the petitioner has been placed under suspension which is wholly uncalled for. He also argued that the petitioner's suspension is in violation of instructions issued by the State Government vide circular dated 13.01.2005 (Annexure P/10).

7. Challenging the charge sheet, the learned counsel argued that the charge sheet is also in furtherance of malafide and biased attitude of respondent no.2/3. It is his submission that the charg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ASHISH SHROTI, J.

Devendra Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21228 of 2025 & Writ Petition No. 29518 of 2025
Decided On : 05-01-2026

Filing a writ petition to challenge an administrative order is a constitutional right and does not constitute misconduct. Suspension must be a reasoned interim measure to prevent interference with proceedings, not a routine punishment.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What are the requirements for placing a government servant under suspension?

5. Does filing a writ petition by a government servant challenging an administrative order constitute misconduct?

6. Does seeking permission to commit suicide by a government servant amount to misconduct?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIORASHISH SHROTI, J. Devendra Sharma – Petitioner Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others - Respondents Writ Petition No. 21228 of 2025 & Writ Petition No. 29518 of 2025Decided On : 05-01-2026

Filing a writ petition to challenge an administrative order is a constitutional right and does not constitute misconduct. Suspension must be a reasoned interim measure to prevent interference with proceedings, not a routine punishment.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What are the requirements for placing a government servant under suspension?

5. Does filing a writ petition by a government servant challenging an administrative order constitute misconduct?

6. Does seeking permission to commit suicide by a government servant amount to misconduct?

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ASHISH SHROTI, J.

Devendra Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21228 of 2025 & Writ Petition No. 29518 of 2025
Decided On : 05-01-2026