IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,

CHIEF JUSTICE

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF

th

ON THE 14 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT APPEAL No. 3654 of 2025

SANJAY SINGH

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Arun Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Anubhav Jain - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

WITH

WRIT APPEAL No. 61 of 2026

K.N. SINGH

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Saurabh Sunder - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Anubhav Jain - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER petitions filed by the appellants alongwith other subject writ petitions disposed of the same granting liberty to the appellants to file an appeal before the competent authority. It further directed that if such an appeal is filed, the same shall be decided on merits within 30 days and the interim stay order against suspension was directed to be continued for the said period of

Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice

Appellants impugn order dated 9th December, 2025 to the limited

extent that the petitions filed by the appellants have been disposed of by granting liberty to the appellants to file an appeal before the competent authority. Appellants had impugned respective orders whereby they have been placed under suspension. The Writ Court while considering the

30 days.

2. In the case of appellant Sanjay Singh (W.A. No.3654/2025), the relevant rule applicable is the M.P. Municipal Service (Executive) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1973"). However, in the case of appellant K.N. Singh, the relevant rule applicable would be the M.P. Municipal Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1968"). The relevant provision of appeal in the Rules of 1968 is Rule 55 - Right of Appeal which reads as under:-

"Rule - 55. Right of appeal- No Municipal employee shall have a right of appeal if -

(a) the order to be appealed against is an order to which subsection (4) of Section 94 of the Act applies and has been passed after obtaining the approval of the State Government; or (b) his substantive pay is less than Rs. 20 per month; or (c) he is holding a temporary appointment; or (d) he is a probationer and has been given an opportunity to show- cause against his discharge and his reply duly considered as required by the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

(e) the order passed against him is (i) an order of censure;

(ii) an order of suspension passed in order to enable an enquiry to be held;

(iii) an order reverting him to his permanent post, if he is officiating in a higher post;

(iv) an order terminating the employment in accordance with the terms of his contract."

Rule 55 of the Rules of 1968 provides that no municipal employee shall have a right of appeal if inter alia the order passed against him is an order of suspension passed in order to enable an enquiry to be held.

3. In the instant case, the appellant K.N. Singh (W.A. No.61/2026)

has been suspended in contemplation of an inquiry. Accordingly, the said employee does not have a right of appeal and such an appeal is specifically excluded in terms of Rule 55 of the Rules of 1968.

4. The relevant rule in the Rules of 1973 is Rule 39 which reads as under:

"39. Right of appeal.- (1) A member of the service shall be entitled to appeal against an order imposing on him any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iii) of Rule 31 other than any order of censure within thirty days from the date of receipt of such order to the State Government when such an order is passed by the [Director or Divisional Commissioner].

(2) The State Government may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, admit any appeal after the expiry of the period specified in sub-rule (1)."

5. Reading of Rule 39 of the Rules of 1973 shows that right of appeal has been provided against an order imposing penalties specified in cl