Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 724 (MP)

Munir Uzama Deshmukh v. State of M. P.

2000-07-27

S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2000
Shri A. Lalwani counsel for the petitioner heard on admission and interim relief. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.10.1999 (Annexure-P/3) by which he has been placed under suspension on the ground that he was in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours in connection with an offence under Section 153-B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that the said order Annexure-P/3 has suffered a deemed revocation under the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 of the "M.P. Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules. 1966 on failure of the Respondents to issue charge-sheet within the time prescribed therein. There can be no doubt that the suspension of the petitioner is referable to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 which provides that a Government Servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody. whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding 48 hours. The requirement of issuing the charge-sheet contained in sub-rule (2)(a) of Rule 9 of the said rules is attracted only where the suspension is ordered in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings as provided in Rule 9 (1)(a) to the said Rules. Since the petitioner has not been placed under suspension in contemplation of any departmental enquiry. the failure to issue charge-sheet does not have the effect of deemed revocation of the order of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in his representation Annexure-P/4 to the competent authority, he had pointed out that his detention was for less than 48 hours and therefore the order of suspension was illegal. Rule 23 of the C.C.A. Rules provides for an appeal against the order of suspension. The said representation has already been treated as an appeal and has been rejected by order dated 15.12.1999 (Annexure-P/5). Even without the deeming provision contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 the power to place an employee under suspension is otherwise also available under Rule 9(1)(b) where a case against such an employee in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial. No ground is made out calling for interference under Art, 226 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed in limine.