Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 346 (MP)

P. N. Raikwar v. State of M. P.

2013-03-14

S.C.SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT : Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the matter, the above mentioned cases were heard analogously together and a common order is being passed. The facts of W.P. No. 10787/2012 are being narrated as under :- 2. The petitioner before this Court holding the post of Dy. Director, Directorate of Industries, Bhopal, has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by an order dated 15-11-2012 by which he has been placed under suspension. The contention of the petitioner is that he was also having the additional charge of the post of General Manager, District Trade & Industries Centre, Indore and he has been placed under suspension along with 3 other officers who are also posted/were posted at District Trade & Industries Centre, Indore. Petitioner has further stated that the State Government has framed Rules for allotment of land known as "M.P. State Industrial Land & Industrial Shed Management Rules, 2008" and the Rules were amended from time to time. The various amendment took place on 24-8-09, 13-10-09 and 2-2-12. Petitioner has further stated that by virtue of amendment dated 13-10-2009, in case of an industrial area, if 80% of the land stood allotted, the remaining land could have been allotted in an industrial area on the basis of first come first serve policy and there was no need to conduct any process of auction. Similarly, it has been argued that based upon subsequent amendment dated 2-2-12 which is also on record, the ceiling limit of 80% was enhanced to 90%. Petitioner has further stated that he was member of the committee which allotted land in respect of Pologround, Industrial Area, Indore and the land was allotted to various persons in the light of the amendments which took place from time to time. It has also been stated that permissions were sought from the Town & Country Planning Department. It has been further stated that clarifications were obtained from the Town & Country Planning Department and no irregularity of any kind has been done by the petitioner in the matter of allotment of land. It has also been stated that permissions were sought from the Town & Country Planning Department. It has been further stated that clarifications were obtained from the Town & Country Planning Department and no irregularity of any kind has been done by the petitioner in the matter of allotment of land. It has also been argued that none of the allotment done by the petitioner or by the Committee has been cancelled till date by the State Government and in case some erroneous allotment was done by the Committee, the same should have been cancelled by the State Government before taking any action against the petitioner. It has been vehemently argued that the policy framed by the State Government/Rules of 2008 does permit for allotment without conducting process of auction and, therefore, the impugned suspension order which is based upon some alleged misconduct in the matter of allotment of land deserves to be quashed by this Court. It has also been argued that the impugned order has been issued in the name of His Excellency, the Governor of the State of Madhya Pradesh and. therefore, the question of preferring an appeal before His Excellency, the Governor does not arise. On the other hand, a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State and it has been stated that the petitioner was also a Member of the Committee which allotted plots to various persons and large number of irregularities have been committed by the petitioner as well as by other committee members. It has been further stated that a Departmental Enquiry has been initiated and the object of passing the order of suspension is to curtail discharge of duties of the delinquent employee pending enquiry and in the present case the petitioner is a Senior Officer and General Manager of DTIC and is holding responsible and influential post and, therefore, there is every likelihood of his influencing the enquiry in case he has not been placed under suspension. It has also been stated that there are grave and serious allegations of corruption and malpractices against the petitioner in the matter of allotment of land to certain favoured persons without there being any authority to do so. It has also been stated that there are grave and serious allegations of corruption and malpractices against the petitioner in the matter of allotment of land to certain favoured persons without there being any authority to do so. Respondents have further stated that keeping in view the gravity of misconduct which is to be enquired into, the order of suspension has been passed and the petitioner shall certainly be given proper opportunity to defend himself in the Departmental Enquiry. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that charge-sheet has been issued on 20-12-2012. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties. 5. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner at the relevant point of time when the alleged misconduct took place, was holding charge of the post of General Manager, District Trade & Industries Centre, Indore. He was a Member of the Committee which deals with allotment of land in respect of industrial area in the township of Indore. The petitioner and other persons who are involved in the matter of allotment have been placed under suspension by a common order dated 15-11-2012. The order of suspension dated 15-11-2012 reads as under :- XXX XXX XXX 6. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Mathur, has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paid Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 . He has placed heavy reliance upon Para 29 of the aforesaid judgment and his contention is that exercise of right to suspend an employee may be justified on the facts of a particular case and in most of the cases persons suffering from suspension syndrome are placing employees under suspension. 7. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment and Paras 26 to 29 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :- "26. To place an employee under suspension is an unqualified right of the employer. This right is conceded to the employer in service jurisprudence everywhere. It has even received statutory recognition under service rules framed by various authorities, including Govt of India and the State Governments. (See : for example. Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. To place an employee under suspension is an unqualified right of the employer. This right is conceded to the employer in service jurisprudence everywhere. It has even received statutory recognition under service rules framed by various authorities, including Govt of India and the State Governments. (See : for example. Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Even under the General Clauses Act, this right is conceded to the employer by Section 16 which, inter alia, provides that power to appoint includes power to suspend or dismiss. 27. The order of suspension does not put an end to an employee's service and he continues to be a member of the service though he is not permitted to work and is paid only Subsistence Allowance which is less than his salary. [See : State of M.P. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 2 SCR 555 = (1977) 2 SCC 288 = AIR 1977 SC 1466 ]. 28. Service Rules also usually provide for payment of salary at a reduced rate during the period of suspension. (See : Fundamental Rule 53). This constitutes the 'Subsistence Allowance'. If there is no provision in the Rules applicable to a particular class of service for payment of salary at a reduced rate, the employer would be liable to pay full salary even during the period of suspension. 29. Exercise of right to suspend an employee may be justified on the facts of a particular case. Instances, however, are not rare where officers have been found to be afflicted by 'suspension syndrome' and the employees have been found to be placed under suspension just for nothing. It is their irritability rather than the employee's trivial lapse which has often resulted in suspension. Suspension notwithstanding, non-payment of Subsistence Allowance is an inhuman act which has an unpropitious effect on the life of an employee. When the employee is placed under suspension, he is demobilised and the salary is also paid to him at a reduced rate under the nick name of 'Subsistence Allowance', so that the employee may sustain himself. This Court in O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 328 = AIR 1987 SC 2257 , made the following observations with regard to Subsistence Allowance (Para 15 of AIR) :- 'An order of a suspension of a Government servant does not put an end to his service under the Government. This Court in O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 328 = AIR 1987 SC 2257 , made the following observations with regard to Subsistence Allowance (Para 15 of AIR) :- 'An order of a suspension of a Government servant does not put an end to his service under the Government. He continues to be a member of the service in spite of the order of suspension. The real effect of suspension as explained by this Court in Khem Chand Vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300 , is that he continues to be a member of the Government service but is not permitted to work and further during the period of suspension he is paid only some allowance - generally called subsistence allowance - which is normally less than the salary instead of the pay and allowances he would have been entitled to if he had not been suspended. There is no doubt that an order of suspension, unless the departmental inquiry is concluded within a reasonable time, affects a Government servant injuriously. The very expression 'subsistence allowance' has an undeniable penal significance. The dictionary meaning of the word 'subsist' as given in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II at p. 2171 is 'to remain alive as on food; to continue to exist'. 'Subsistence' means - means of supporting life, especially a minimum livelihood'." (Emphasis supplied) 8. The aforesaid judgment was delivered by the Apex Court in a case where a Departmental Enquiry as well as criminal proceedings were pending against an employee and the Apex Court has dealt with the issue of staying the Departmental Enquiry in certain circumstances, however, the Apex Court has also dealt with the suspension in the aforesaid paragraphs. 9. This Court has carefully gone through the order of suspension and the order of suspension reflects that the petitioner along with 3 other persons have allegedly illegally allotted land in Indore to the persons who were not eligible for such allotment and by forging the proceedings. Such an alleged charge is a very serious charge in the opinion of this Court and the alleged misconduct certainly requires a Departmental Enquiry. It is not a case where the State Government suffering from suspension syndrome has placed the petitioner and other officers under suspension. Such an alleged charge is a very serious charge in the opinion of this Court and the alleged misconduct certainly requires a Departmental Enquiry. It is not a case where the State Government suffering from suspension syndrome has placed the petitioner and other officers under suspension. The State Government with due application of mind keeping in view the statutory rules on the subject has passed the order of suspension looking to the gravity of the alleged misconduct. 10. Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 reads as under :- "9. (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension- (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under inventilation, inquiry or trial : Provided that a Government servant shall invariably be placed under suspension when a challan for a criminal offence involving corruption or other moral turpitude is filed against him : Provided further that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the Appointing Authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made. (2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of Appointing Authority- (a) 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 forty-eight hours; (b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of conviction for an offence, he is sentence to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction." 11. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1966 empowers the Appointing Authority or any other to which it is subordinate to place an employee under suspension against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated. 12. In the present case, the disciplinary proceedings were initially contemplated now they are very much pending. A charge-sheet has been issued on 20-12-2012 in respect of those alleged illegal allotments to ineligible persons. 13. 12. In the present case, the disciplinary proceedings were initially contemplated now they are very much pending. A charge-sheet has been issued on 20-12-2012 in respect of those alleged illegal allotments to ineligible persons. 13. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 126 , which was again a case decided by the Apex Court in respect of suspension and the Apex Court in the aforesaid case in Para 13 has held as under :- "13. It is thus settled law that normally when an Appointed Authority or the Disciplinary Authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the Appointing Authority and on application of the mind by Disciplinary Authority. Appointing Authority or Disciplinary Authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words, it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending enquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the enquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or enquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending enquiry or contemplated enquiry or investigation would be another thing if the action is by malafides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result. The authority also in mind a public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental enquiry or trial of a criminal charge." 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid paragraph and keeping in view the order of suspension and other factors which have been brought on record, it is certainly not a case where the authorities have acted with malafides, arbitrariness or for an ulterior purpose. The alleged misconduct as reflected in the order of suspension is certainly a grave misconduct, the State Government keeping in view the misconduct has rightly placed the petitioner and other employees under suspension and, therefore, this Court does not find any reason in the light of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court to interfere with the order of suspension. 15. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Ashok Sharma (Dr.), reported in 2011 (1) M.P.H.T. 153 (DB) = 2011 (2) MPLJ 206 . Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the various documents, we are of the considered opinion that the order of stay of suspension cannot be allowed to stand in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It is settled law that order of suspension is not that of punishment. Requirement of law is that reasons must be mentioned in the order of suspension. In the instant case, reasons have been mentioned in the order of suspension and those are found to be sufficient for ordering suspension of the petitioner. Enquiry in six cases was pending before the Lokayukta. Requirement of law is that reasons must be mentioned in the order of suspension. In the instant case, reasons have been mentioned in the order of suspension and those are found to be sufficient for ordering suspension of the petitioner. Enquiry in six cases was pending before the Lokayukta. In one of the cases, charge-sheet had already been issued to the petitioner and Income Tax Department has sent the report to the Government to the effect that petitioner was possessing the assets disproportionate to his income. In our opinion, these were the grounds which were more than sufficient to order suspension of petitioner, hence, the interim relief could not have been granted staying the operation of the order of suspension. When we refer to the documents relied upon before the Single Bench, communication (P-5), dated 17-1-08 is a letter of the Deputy Controller with respect to the sample being as per specification. Para 3 of the communication (P-6), dated 26th November, 2009 indicates that there was no unanimity in the opinions of Technical Committee constituted for the purpose of valuation and Directorate of Health Services/Health Department. It would be advisable in the circumstances that Health Department constitute a team for rate analysis. It could not be said that petitioner was given clean chit by the aforesaid communication. Communication (P-8), dated 8-8-07 is with respect to cancellation of certain supply orders. Communication (P-11) is with respect to the decision of the Committee for the purpose of tenders. Communication (P-12) is dated 16-12-2009 by which explanation was sought from Dr. Ashok Sharma into the various irregularities. P-13 is the reply of the petitioner. P-14 is the communication dated 12th March, 2010 written to the Legal Advisor of Lokayukta, M.P., Bhopal with respect to enquiry in Case No. 178/07 pending against Dr. Ashok Sharma. The communication was with reference to letter dated 4-1-2010 written by the Legal Advisor. In communication (P-15), Para 14.7 it has been mentioned that by making payment of the tax the business man was unduly benefited. Tax was required to be deduced at the source. A reading of communications makes it clear that no clean chit was given to the petitioner. In communication (P-15), Para 14.7 it has been mentioned that by making payment of the tax the business man was unduly benefited. Tax was required to be deduced at the source. A reading of communications makes it clear that no clean chit was given to the petitioner. In W.P. No. 8163/2008 and W.P. No. 364/2009 this Court has observed that there was substantial compliance of the tender condition and this Court was not inclined to make an interference as period of contract granted in favour of petitioner Jagran Solutions was going to be over very shortly, it would be in the fitness of the things that contract continues for remaining period. Whatever, that may be the conduct of petitioner in person never came for consideration. 7. In our opinion, when Income Tax Department has sent a report that petitioner is possessing disproportionate assets as compared to his income, that by itself is a sufficient ground to place the petitioner under suspension. Apart from that there are other cases and pendency of Departmental Enquiry also in which charge-sheet was issued. Correctness of the allegations of Departmental Enquiry cannot be determined by making roving enquiry in the matter of suspension. In our opinion, the order of suspension was fully justified and its operation could not have been stayed by the Single Bench. Petitioner was having the remedy of appeal also, appeal has to be decided by an higher body as compared to the authority ordering the suspension. Thus, in view of availability of remedy of appeal also, no interference is warranted in the order of suspension. Apart from that continuance of petitioner was to adversely affect the pending enquiry hence suspension was warranted." 16. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case has held that the correctness of allegations of Departmental Enquiry cannot be determined by making a roving enquiry in the matter of suspension and therefore, whether the charges levelled against the petitioner and other persons are correct or not, whether any misconduct is made out or not is certainly a subject matter of the Departmental Enquiry. 17. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others Vs. Sanjiv Rajan, reported in 1993 Supp. (3) SCC483, while dealing with the issues of suspension, in Paragraph 5, has held as under :-- "5. 17. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others Vs. Sanjiv Rajan, reported in 1993 Supp. (3) SCC483, while dealing with the issues of suspension, in Paragraph 5, has held as under :-- "5. The ground given by the High Court to stay the operation of the suspension order, is patently wrong. There is no restriction on the authority to pass a suspension order second time. The first order might be withdrawn by the authority on the ground that at that stage, the evidence appearing against the delinquent employee is not sufficient or for some reason, which is not connected with the merits of the case. As happened in the present case, the earlier order of suspension dated 22nd March, 1991 was quashed by the High Court on the ground that some other suspended officer had been allowed to join duties. That order had nothing to do with the merits of the case. Ordinarily, when there is an accusation of defalcation of the monies, the delinquent employees have tb be kept away from the establishment till the charges are finally disposed of. Whether the charges are baseless, malicious or vindictive and are framed only to keep the individual concerned out of the employment is a difference matter. But even in such a case, no conclusion can be arrived at without examining the entire record in question and hence it is always advisable to allow the disciplinary proceedings to continue unhindered. It is possible that in some cases, the authorities do not proceed with the matter as expeditiously as they ought to, which results in prolongation of the sufferings of the delinquent employee. But the remedy in such cases is either to call for an explanation from the authorities in the matter, and if it is found unsatisfactory, to direct them to complete the inquiry within a stipulated period and to increase the suspension allowance adequately. It is true that in the present case, the charge-sheet was filed alter almost a year of the order of suspension. However, the facts pleaded by the appellants show that the defalcations were over a long period from 1986 to 1991 and they involved some lakhs of rupees. It also appears that the authorities have approached the police and in the police investigation, the amount of defalcation is found to be still more. However, the facts pleaded by the appellants show that the defalcations were over a long period from 1986 to 1991 and they involved some lakhs of rupees. It also appears that the authorities have approached the police and in the police investigation, the amount of defalcation is found to be still more. Since the matter is of taking accounts which are spread over from 1986 to 1991 and of correlating the entries with the relevant documents, and several individuals are involved, the framing of charges was bound to take some time. The Court has to examine each case on its own facts and decide whether the delay in serving the charge-sheet and completing the inquiry is justified or not. However, in the present case, the High Court has not quashed the order of suspension on the ground of delay in framing of the charges. As stated earlier, it has set aside the order of suspension on the ground that the authority had no power to pass the second order of suspension in the same case. We are afraid that the High Court has misconstrued the nature and purpose of the power of suspension vested in the management. It is not disputed that at present all officers concerned are served with the charge-sheets and have been suspended. There is no discrimination between the officers on that account. The charges are also grave and the authorities have come to the conclusion that during the disciplinary proceedings, the officers should not continue in employment to enable them to conduct the proceedings unhindered. Hence, we are satisfied that the order in appeal was not justified." 18. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has held that Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the suspension orders unless passed malafide and without there being even a prima facie evidence connecting the delinquent with the misconduct in question. In the present case, the order of suspension and the charge-sheet cannot be brushed aside as the charges cannot be said to be baseless, malicious or vindictive and, therefore, the question of interference by this Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, does not arise. 19. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Kashyap and another Vs. 19. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Kashyap and another Vs. Union of India and another, reported in AIR 2010 SC 1151 , while dealing with en bloc suspension of eight members and Chairman of the Haryana Public Service Commission by the Governor without issuing show-cause notice or without giving them an opportunity of being heard has held that the principle of audi alteram partem are not necessarily to be followed rigorously in domain of service law specially involving suspension of a person. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case, in Paragraphs 5 to 11, has held as under :- "5. It is not necessary that principles of 'audi alteram partem' rigorously followed in the domain of service law need to be applied with the same degree of rigour in proceedings involving the removal and suspension of the members of the State Public Service Commission. This exceptional treatment is mandated by Article 317. Furthermore, the issuance of suspension orders is as per the 'procedure established by law' and not in derogation from the same. 6. It will be useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in Special Reference No. 1 of 1983, (1990) 4 SCC 262 , wherein it was held that the position of a Chairman or a Member of a Public Service Commission cannot be equated with that of a public servant and hence the case law pertaining to the suspension and removal of public employees has no relevance in the context of the proceedings under Article 317. 7. The relevant observations were made at Para 9 : '9. The case of a Government servant is, subject to the special provisions, governed by the law of master and servant, but the position in the case of a member of the commission is different. The latter holds a constitutional post and is governed by the special provisions dealing with different aspects of his office as envisaged by the Articles 315 to 323 of Chapter II of Part XIV of the Constitution. In our view, the decisions dealing with service cases relied up on behalf of the respondent have no application to the present matter and the reference will have to answer on the merits of the case with reference to the complaint and the respondents' deference'. 8. In our view, the decisions dealing with service cases relied up on behalf of the respondent have no application to the present matter and the reference will have to answer on the merits of the case with reference to the complaint and the respondents' deference'. 8. Furthermore, this Court in Reference No. 1 of 2003, (2005) 6 SCC 789, has held that no hearing or opportunity of showing cause against the proposed reference under Article 317 (1) is necessary before making the actual reference. The relevant observations are as follows (Para 2):- '2. We have heard the learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India, as also the learned Counsel for the respondent on the preliminary objections. We are of the opinion that no hearing or opportunity of showing cause against the proposed reference under Article 317 (1) is necessary before making the reference. The first objection is overruled'. 9. In Say alee Sanjeev Joshi, In Re., (2007) 11 SCC 547 = 2007 AIR SCW 5103, which concerned the removal of a member of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission under Article 317 on grounds of misbehaviour, this Court had observed (Para 1) :- '1......Since a request was made to the President of India to act in terms of Article 317 (1) of the Constitution, the placing of the respondent under suspension under Article 317(2) of the Constitution was proper'. 10. It is clear from the perusal of the above cases that the petitioners were not entitled to an opportunity to show cause or to be heard before the point of time that the orders of suspension were passed by the Hon'ble Governor of Haryana under Article 317 (2) after the President had referred the matter to the Supreme Court. The rationale behind empowering the Governor of a State to issue such an order for suspension even before the reference is actually decided by the Supreme Court is to maintain the public trust and confidence in the impartial and honest working of the said Public Service Commission. It is a prerogative given to the State Executive, but the members so suspended are given the opportunity to present their cases when the actual reference is decided upon by the Supreme Court. It is open to the members so suspended to present their point of view at that stage. It is a prerogative given to the State Executive, but the members so suspended are given the opportunity to present their cases when the actual reference is decided upon by the Supreme Court. It is open to the members so suspended to present their point of view at that stage. After all, it is only after the merits of the case have been examined that the Supreme Court arrives at an answer to the reference and communicates the same decision to the President for further action. 11. The Public Service Commission is an institution of the utmost importance created by the Constitution of India under Article 315. For the efficient functioning of a democracy it is imperative that the Public Service Commissions are manned by people of the highest skill and irreproachable integrity, so that the selections to various public posts can be immunised from all sorts of extraneous factors like political pressure or personal favouritism and are made solely on considerations of merit." 20. Keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner shall be entitled for an opportunity to present his point of view and his defence in the Departmental Enquiry and the suspension order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, keeping in view the charges levelled against the petitioner, is justified. 21. The respondents have stated the reasons in the order of suspension as required under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and by no stretch of imagination the order can be termed to be a non-speaking order and in absence of malafides established by the petitioner, the question of interference by this Court, does not arise. 22. Resultantly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the State Government has rightly passed the impugned order of suspension dated 15-11-2012 keeping in view Rule 9 of the Rules of 1965, and therefore, no case of interference is made out in the matter. 22. Resultantly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the State Government has rightly passed the impugned order of suspension dated 15-11-2012 keeping in view Rule 9 of the Rules of 1965, and therefore, no case of interference is made out in the matter. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on merits, in respect of misconduct allegedly committed by the petitioner and other persons and any observation made by this Court in this order is confined only to the suspension order and will not come in way of the petitioner and petitioners of other connected writ petitions in the matter of Departmental Enquiry which is pending against them on account of issuance of charge-sheet dated 20-12-2012. The writ petition is dismissed and the other connected writ petitions are also dismissed.