Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 451 (MP)

J. N. Shrivastava v. State of M. P.

2011-04-13

R.S.JHA, S.R.ALAM

body2011
ORDER 1. This intra-Court appeal is preferred under section 2 (1) of the M.P. Uchcha , Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyan1, 2005, against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.3.2011 passed in writ Petition No. 5151/2011 by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. It appears that being aggrieved by the order of the respondent No. 1 . dated 14.3.2011 placing the appellant under suspension in contemplation of : departmental proceedings, the petitioner preferred the instant writ petition. 4. The learned Single Judge having heard learned counsel for the parties dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant has an alternative efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Rules 23 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 for brevity 'the 1966 Rules'. 5. The appellant being dissatisfied with the above order has preferred this appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of suspension for the reason that admittedly a departmental proceeding is under contemplation against the petitioner-appellant and, therefore, he can be placed under suspension under Rule 9 (1) of the 1996 Rules and further against such an order an alternative statutory remedy under Rule 23 of 1966 Rules by way of appeal is available to the appellant. Hence, there is no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. We are, however, of the view that suspension of a delinquent employee in a pending proceeding should not unnecessarily be prolonged. We, therefore, ; provide that the departmental proceeding, if initiated against the appellant, all endeavour should be made to conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order provided the appellant renders full cooperation in the early disposal of the enquiry. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has made a statement on behalf of the appellant that he shall render full cooperation in the early disposal of the proceeding and shall appear before the Enquiry Officer on the date fixed and will not seek unnecessary adjournment. 9. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has made a statement on behalf of the appellant that he shall render full cooperation in the early disposal of the proceeding and shall appear before the Enquiry Officer on the date fixed and will not seek unnecessary adjournment. 9. It is further provided that if for any reason, the proceedings are not concluded within the aforesaid period of six months, the respondents may consider to revoke the order of suspension; but the proceedings will continue. 10. With the above order, this writ appeal stands finally disposed of.