Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 148 (MP)

Vinod Kumar Dhakre v. State of M. P.

2015-02-04

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2015
ORDER 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Vinod Kumar Dhakre is aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.4 Collector and District Election Officer, Neemuch, District Neemuch suspending the petitioner from the post of Head Clerkcum­Accountant. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as in­charge of Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipality, Ratangarh. The respondent No.4 Collector and District Election Officer, Neemuch, District Neemuch suspended the petitioner on 12.10.2013 stating that the petitioner was absent without prior intimation and because of absence of the petitioner the election work of the Assembly election was adversely affected. Thereafter all the pleadings of the petitioner to the respondents fell on deaf ears and hence, the present petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the petitioner was suspended on 12.10.2013 no charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner within 45 days from the date of suspension. And thus, as per rule 9(5)(a) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 the suspension order shall automatically revoked and therefore, the petitioner has filed representation on 24.3.2014 and 2.4.2014 (Annexure P-2). However, nothing has been done in the matter and Counsel submitted that the petitioner is entitled to rejoin the services, which the respondents were not permitting. Counsel placed reliance on Dev Sharan v. MPEB and others 2001(4) MPHT 72 whereby this Court had held that the charge sheet was not issued to the petitioner after a period of 90 days and then considering the provisions of second proviso to rule 9(5)(a) of the Rules given in the MPEB Notification dated 5.8.1989 entitled the petitioner for revocation of the order of suspension, which was imperative under rule 9(5)(a) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Hence, counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be restored to his services. 4. Counsel for the respondents/State has submitted the reply and submitted that the petitioner was absent from election duty without prior permission or approval from the District Election Officer. He remained absent to do the election work during the Vidhan Sabha Election of 2013 and due to his absence, the election work was adversely affected. 4. Counsel for the respondents/State has submitted the reply and submitted that the petitioner was absent from election duty without prior permission or approval from the District Election Officer. He remained absent to do the election work during the Vidhan Sabha Election of 2013 and due to his absence, the election work was adversely affected. And the dereliction in duty is taken seriously by the State Government and therefore, the petitioner was suspended by passed the impugned order dated 12.10.2013. Besides Counsel also submitted that the Special Police Establishment Lokayukta, Gwalior had also informed that there is a criminal case bearing Crime No.85/2009 registered under sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with under sections 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC. They candidly admitted that the challan is yet to be put up, however, notice to this effect was issued to the petitioner (Annexure R-1). It is also submitted that since the petitioner was the officiating Chief Municipal Officer proper information was not given to the Collector or the State Government; and despite notice to the petitioner to remain present before the Special Judge, Morena, he failed to do so. The challan was also put up on 9.10.2013, but at the time of suspension there was dereliction in duty in the election and the petitioner was suspended. The petitioner's services have been suspended in accordance with rule 9(1) of proviso 1 and there is no lapse in the proceedings as is being alleged. The proceedings before the lower Court indicated that the petitioner is released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner has misrepresented before the authority and the present petition is devoid of merits. Hence, counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Counsel for the respondent No.5, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per provisions of law, alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. Counsel placed reliance on S.A. Khan v. State of Haryana AIR 1993 SC 1152 whereby the apex Court had categorically held that there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner. Hence, counsel prayed that on this ground alone the present petition be dismissed. 6. On considering the above submissions, I find that the petitioner has failed to reveal before this Court regarding lapse on the part of the petitioner. Hence, counsel prayed that on this ground alone the present petition be dismissed. 6. On considering the above submissions, I find that the petitioner has failed to reveal before this Court regarding lapse on the part of the petitioner. The suspension order dated 12.10.2014 (Annexure P-1) also categorically mentioned that unauthorized absence was the cause for the issuance of the suspension Order and it cannot be said that the petitioner was not faced with the charge. The suspension order is quite detailed and in accordance with proviso of rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and moreover, if at all the petitioner is still aggrieved, he could file an appeal before the competent Court. Considering the nature of the allegations, I find that there is no merit in the petition and the petition is, therefore, dismissed as being sans merit. .