Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1022 (MP)

Amar Nath Singh v. State of MP

2012-10-08

RAJENDRA MENON

body2012
Judgment Rajendra Menon, J.;- 1. Challenging the order-dated 25.9.2012 - Annexure P/1, suspending the petitioner under Rule 9 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules'), petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is stated by Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, that petitioner is working as Assistant Commissioner in the Tribal Welfare Department and, he has been suspended without any just cause or reason, without taking note of the facts properly and without any justification. It is emphasized by Shri Rajesh Tiwari that initially a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P/3, on 13.8.2012, and it was alleged in the show-cause notice that in the promotion exercise done in the department for the year in question, petitioner has ordered for promotion merely because certain subordinate employees have put the proposal before him. In doing so, it is alleged that the petitioner has not discharged his duties properly and in a negligent manner has approved the proposals for promotion in view of which a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking him as to why two increments without cumulative effect be not imposed. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a detailed reply pointing out that he has not ordered any transfer and in each and every case of transfer it was emphasized by him that transfer was either ordered on the recommendation of the Minister concerned or on administrative consideration. It is stated that when the explanation was available which indicated that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the show-cause notice are not correct, without appreciating the aforesaid and suspending the petitioner that also on the ground that an inquiry is contemplated it is stated that the respondents have committed an error and in doing so have not indicated any reason as to why petitioner is suspended. Contending that mechanically without any justification and without the requirement of Rule 9 of the CCA Rules being available, petitioner is suspended and the defence of the petitioner which is already available on record is not taken note of, petitioner wants this Court to quash the order of suspension. 3. Contending that mechanically without any justification and without the requirement of Rule 9 of the CCA Rules being available, petitioner is suspended and the defence of the petitioner which is already available on record is not taken note of, petitioner wants this Court to quash the order of suspension. 3. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel, submits that against the suspension order petitioner can always file an appeal before the competent authority and merely because the petitioner has submitted some explanation that does not mean that the explanation is correct, it has to be accepted and the petitioner exonerated. Accordingly, Shri Rajesh Tiwari submits that at this stage, no interference be made. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. Suspension of the petitioner is due to pendency of the departmental inquiry and to take action against him. Even though in the show-cause notice it is indicated that in the matter of transferring various employees, petitioner has committed irregularity and petitioner by filing a detailed reply has tried to demonstrate that he has not committed any irregularity, at this stage it is not for a writ court to examine the explanation of the petitioner and hold that he is not guilty of the allegations levelled, quash the show-cause notice, exonerate him and hold that his suspension is wholly unwarranted. Suspension can always be made by the department in case they are anticipating to conduct a departmental inquiry. In the absence of any statutory rule or regulation being violated or malafides made out from the material available, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. 5. The only contention of the petitioner that if the defence of the petitioner is examined, it would be seen that he has not ordered any transfer contrary to the transfer policy. It is his case that the transfers have been ordered by the Minister of the Department concerned. If the aforesaid contention of the petitioner has to be accepted an inquiry has to be held with regard to the allegations levelled against him, the defence of the petitioner will have to be taken note of and a finding recorded by this Court that the allegations are not correct. If the aforesaid contention of the petitioner has to be accepted an inquiry has to be held with regard to the allegations levelled against him, the defence of the petitioner will have to be taken note of and a finding recorded by this Court that the allegations are not correct. At this stage, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, this function is not to be discharged by this Court. It is the function of the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority before whom the matter is pending to conduct all this exercise and take action. For the present, as the suspension is pending a departmental inquiry and Rule 9 of the CCA Rules permit suspension of an employee pending departmental inquiry, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. 6. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, who will be in a better position to consider his grievance, this petition is disposed of. 7. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid. Certified copy as per rules.