IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI ON THE 18^th OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 5306 of 2026 JAGDISH MANDOR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Swati Ukhale -GA for the respondents/State.

Reserved on 18.02.2026 Post on 24.02.2026

ORDER

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P/4) passed by Respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. The petitioner further challenges the appellate order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P/5) passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby the statutory appeal preferred against the suspension order was dismissed. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders and a writ of mandamus for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

2. The facts, as supplied, are that the petitioner is a citizen of India and a resident of District Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh. He was previously posted as Panchayat Secretary at Gram Panchayat Khamli. Upon his transfer from the said Gram Panchayat, the petitioner handed over the entire charge to one Shri Rajendra Porwal, as evidenced by the charge list of the years 2014 and 2015 (Annexure P/1). The factum of handing over the charge is further supported by a letter dated 06.10.2015 (Annexure P/2) issued by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Tarana.

3. In the year 2015, two criminal cases were registered against the petitioner by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta, bearing Crime Nos. 86/2015 and 87/2015. After a period of ten years, the investigation concluded and charge-sheets were filed on 21.08.2025. These cases are currently sub-judice before the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Ujjain, as Special Case Nos. 6/2025 and 7/2025.

4. Following the filing of the charge-sheets, Respondent No. 3 issued the impugned order dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P/4), placing the petitioner under suspension from his current posting at Gram Panchayat Jharnavda. The order cites a Notification dated 26.02.2007 (Annexure P/3) and invokes powers under Rule 4(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short ‘the Rules of 1999’). The petitioner’s subsequent appeal to Respondent No. 2 was rejected on 02.02.2026 (Annexure P/5).

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned suspension is illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide. It is argued that the petitioner’s service conditions are governed by the M.P. Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 (for short ‘the Rules of 2011’), which do not contain any provision for suspension upon the filing of a charge-sheet. It is further submitted that the respondents erred in applying Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 1999 and the Notification dated 26.02.2007, as the said notification pertains to the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966, which are inapplicable to Panchayat Secretaries.

6. The petitioner further contends that the suspension is punitive rather than preventive. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013) 16 SCC 147, it is argued that the object of suspension is to keep a delinquent away from the "place of mischief." In this case, the alleged irregularities pertain to Gram Panchayat Khamli from which the petitioner was moved in 2015; thus, there is no nexus between the pending trial and his current duties at Gram Panchayat Jharnavda.

7. Per contra, the respondents, in their reply, oppose the petition and maintain that the suspension is valid and within jurisdiction. They rely on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of M.P. & Ors. v. Ramesh Gir (W.A. No. 727/2020), passed on 21/09/2020 which held that the power to appoint naturally includes the power to suspend under Section 16 of the Gen