Suspension At MLA's Behest Based On 'Hurt Ego' Is An Abuse of Power, Quashed For Malice: Madhya Pradesh High Court - 2025-08-07

MP High Court Quashes Bank CEO's Suspension, Cites Political Pressure and "Hurt Ego" of MLAs

Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed the suspension of a District Cooperative Bank CEO, ruling that the action was not a routine administrative decision but an abuse of power actuated by political pressure and the "hurt ego" of local legislators.

In a significant order, Hon’ble Shri Justice Vivek Jain held that the suspension of Rajesh Raikwar, then Chief Executive Officer of District Central Cooperative Bank, Sidhi, was a result of him refusing to buckle under pressure from MLAs to cancel the transfer of a clerk. The court also bypassed the alternative remedy available before the Cooperative Tribunal, citing a "likelihood of bias" given the direct involvement of the State's Cooperative Minister in the suspension process.

---

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Rajesh Raikwar, challenged his suspension order (Annexure-P/1), which was issued on grounds of alleged misbehavior and use of unparliamentary language against a lady Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) and two other ministers.

The issue originated when Mr. Raikwar, in his capacity as CEO, transferred a clerk named Ashok Sharma from one branch to another within the district. Following this, a lady MLA allegedly telephoned him, demanding the cancellation of the transfer. Mr. Raikwar contended that he acted within his jurisdiction and that the subsequent suspension was a malicious act driven by the MLAs' "alter ego" after he refused to comply with their demand.

Petitioner vs. State: The Core Arguments

Petitioner's Counsel, Shri Anil Lala, argued:

* The suspension was actuated by legal malice and was an abuse of power by the appointing authority.

* The petitioner was being pressured by the MLA to cancel a legitimate transfer order he was competent to issue.

* The entire incident was orchestrated to punish an officer for not submitting to political influence.

Respondent's Counsel, Advocate General Shri Prashant Singh, countered:

* The court should not entertain the petition as the petitioner had alternative remedies under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, specifically before the Registrar or the State Cooperative Tribunal.

* On merits, the suspension was a routine administrative action based on the petitioner's misconduct, which involved using indecent language towards a public representative.

* MLAs are within their rights to bring grievances within their constituency to the notice of competent authorities.

Court's Reasoning: Piercing the Veil of Alternative Remedy and Political Influence

Justice Vivek Jain first addressed the preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy. The court noted the direct and high-level political involvement in the suspension. A complaint was jointly signed by three MLAs, forwarded by the District In-charge Minister, and approved by the State Cooperative Minister on the official note sheet before being sent to the Bank's Managing Director for execution.

The court reasoned that it was improbable for a Joint Registrar, an officer of the same department, to deliver an independent verdict against an order sanctioned by his own Minister. Regarding the State Cooperative Tribunal, the court observed that its members' reappointment is at the discretion of the State Government. This dependency, coupled with the presence of a serving government officer on the bench, created a reasonable apprehension of bias. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana , the High Court emphasized that "justice should not only be done, but should also seem to have been done." It concluded:

"...to uphold the principal that justice should not only be done, but should also appear to be done, this Court holds that in the peculiar facts of this case, the remedy before the Tribunal is not an efficacious remedy and, therefore, proceeds to entertain this petition on merits."

On Merits: Distinguishing Public Grievance from Political Pressure

Analyzing the merits, the court found the allegations of "indecent language" to be unsubstantiated by the official records. The note sheet, which quoted the petitioner's alleged words, did not contain any language that could be prima facie termed indecent. The petitioner had reportedly stated that he was a bank officer to whom state government rules did not apply and challenged the MLA to facilitate a conversation with the Cooperative Minister.

The court distinguished this case from legitimate intervention by public representatives. It noted this was not a case of an MLA forwarding a public grievance but of "projecting the cause of a single employee holding the petty post of Clerk." The court further observed:

"It is in fact a case of the MLA feeling ego hurt by refusal of the petitioner to accept her demand of cancellation of transfer of Clerk and this led to the entire unpleasant institution."

The judgment underscored the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Police Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji , affirming that statutory power must be exercised by the authority in whom it is vested, free from external dictation.

The Final Verdict

The High Court concluded that the suspension order was passed under undue political pressure and was an excessive and biased exercise of power. It found that the incident was a case of a clerk using political connections to reverse a transfer, and the MLAs had overreached their jurisdiction.

Setting aside the suspension order, the court directed that the petitioner be reinstated forthwith with all consequential benefits for the suspension period. The petition was allowed.