Suspension is an interim measure, not a punishment, and should not be invoked in a routine manner. An authority must apply its mind to determine if the alleged misconduct warrants a major penalty, consistent with government guidelines and judicial principles, to avoid arbitrary action.

ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2026, whereby respondent no.3 has placed him under suspension.

2. The petitioner is holding the post of Primary Teacher and is posted at Government Primary School, Aadivasi Mohalla Semarkhedi, Sankul Kendra Bairad, Vikaskhand Pohari, District Shivpuri. He has been placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 13.03.2026 on the allegation that he posted an objectionable video with an intent to cause disturbance in society, thereby damaging the image of the department. It is alleged that the act of the petitioner is in violation of Rule 3(1), (2), (3) of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. During the period of suspension, the petitioner has been attached to the office of the Block Education Development Officer, Badarwas.

3. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the video posted by the petitioner on his Facebook account does not contain any objectionable material which could cause disturbance in society. He submitted that the petitioner merely stated in the video about the shortage of LPG gas prevailing in society due to the Israel-Iran war. He further submitted that the act of the petitioner does not, in any manner, violate the Conduct Rules. Learned counsel further argued that the entire action has been taken at the dictates of respondent no.4, who is an MLA from the constituency. It is submitted that the video was posted on 12.03.2026 at about 6 PM, and respondent no.4 wrote a letter to respondent no.3 on 13.03.2026, and immediately, following the directions, the impugned order of suspension was passed. This clearly reflects that respondent no.3 did not apply his mind independently by considering the allegations made against the petitioner and, in a mechanical manner, placed the petitioner under suspension.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, vide order dated 21.10.2025, the Collector, Shivpuri, had given him additional charge of Rajya Anand Sansthan as Master Trainer, and he is working in that capacity by virtue of the said order. As per his submissions, by passing the impugned order, respondent no.3 cannot override or supersede the order passed by the Collector. Learned counsel also referred to documents filed along with the petition as Annexure P/2 to demonstrate that the petitioner has been actively participating in social activities and is a dedicated teacher, and he never intended to do something which may cause unrest in society. He, therefore, prayed for interference by this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, on advance notice, opposed the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel. He submitted that the petitioner has only been placed under suspension, which does not amount to punishment, and, therefore, no cause of action arises for filing the present petition. He also submitted that the adjudication of a suspension order would be beyond the purview of judicial review when the issue of competence is not involved. He thus prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Considered the arguments of both parties on admission and perused the records.

7. It is noteworthy that the purpose of placing a Government servant under suspension is to keep him away from any possible mischief and to ensure that the proceedings are conducted unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent employee may not have custody or control over relevant records or misuse his position.

8. The Govt. has issued instructions vide circular dated 13.01.2005 giving guidelines to kept in min