IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 18 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 5744 of 2025 SURENDRA PRATAP SINGH CHOUHAN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Nirmal Sharma & Mr. Aditya Dixit - Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Dharmendra Nayak - GA for the State.

ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated

13.07.2024 (Annexure P/1), whereby he was placed under suspension and the Platoon Commander was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry and submit the report within three days. He has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service by revoking his suspension order. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vs. Union of India, reported in (2015)7 SCC 291.

2. The petitioner was working as a Home Guard Volunteer and was posted at Police Station Mayapur, District Shivpuri. A video went viral in which the petitioner was seen beating a person along with the First Response Vehicle (FRV) driver. The petitioner was suspended vide the impugned order dated 13.07.2024 and was attached to the Home Guard Line, District Shivpuri. He was held not entitled to honorarium during the period of suspension. The impugned order further states that the Platoon Commander was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, who submitted his report within three days.

3. The petitioner submitted a representation against the suspension order before the authorities. However, since nothing was done for six months, he filed the present writ petition on 13.02.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the suspension order on the ground that there was no reason for placing the petitioner under suspension. He also submitted that keeping the petitioner under suspension for more than 1½ years is arbitrary and unreasonable, particularly when the petitioner is not being paid even subsistence allowance. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra) to contend that the suspension could not have continued beyond three months without issuance of a charge-sheet. Learned counsel further submitted that under Rule 24-A, the maximum punishment that can be inflicted upon is withholding three days' wages. However, the action of the respondents in keeping the petitioner under suspension for more than 1½ years without payment of wages amounts to punishment without conducting any enquiry.

5. Learned Government Advocate, in his turn, supported the impugned order and submitted that, based upon the viral video, the act of the petitioner was found to be in violation of Rule 23(c) of the M.P. Home Guard Rules, 2016, and therefore the petitioner was suspended under Rule 24-A(4) of the Rules of 2016. It is his submission that a preliminary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, wherein he was found guilty. An FIR was also registered against the petitioner at the instance of the victim for offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2) & 3/5 of the BNS. He also raised an objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of challenging the suspension order by filing an appeal under Rule 26. Learned Government Advocate further referred to provisions of Rule 27 to submit that if a charge- sheet is filed in a criminal case or a Home Guard Volunteer is detained for more than 48 hours, he can be discharged. It is his submission that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the case of the petitioner. He submitted that the impugned order of suspension is justified and does not warrant interference by this Court.

6. Arguments were considered and the record was perused.

7. It is the stand of the respondents that the impugned suspension order has been passed under Rule 24-A of the Rules of 2016. Rule 24 provides for punishment which can be imposed on a Home Guard Volunteer for any act of misconduct. Suspension is one of the codified