Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 787 (MP)

Rajneesh Jain v. State of M. P.

2020-08-07

SUJOY PAUL

body2020
ORDER 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 7.3.2020 (Annx.P/1) whereby the etitioner is debarred from undertaking the examination work in his entire career. In addition, petitioner is placed under suspension by order dated 7.3.2020 (Annx.P/2). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the orders are issued without following the principles of natural justice. The allegations mentioned in the suspension order are factually incorrect and warrants interference by this Court. Petitioner's pending appeal (Annx.P/4) against the suspension order has not been decided till date. No charge sheet is served on the petitioner within 45 days and hence as per rule-9 of MPCS (CCA) Rules, suspension stood revoked automatically. 3. Prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer. 4. So far first order dated 7.3.2020 (Annx.P/1) is concerned, it only debars the petitioner from examination work. Petitioner's substantive work attached with the post of lecturer is not taken away. In other words, petitioner has a statutory/ legal right to perform the duties which is attached to his substantive post of lecturer. Rest is the prerogative of the employer to decided whether a lecturer is fit to be deputed for the examination work. Thus, I am unable to hold that this order entails any civil consequence or is an adverse order for which principles of natural justice were required to be followed. However, in the interest of justice, I am only inclined to observe that this order of debar will remain subject to final outcome of the departmental inquiry which is contemplated. So far suspension order is concerned, it is appellable and petitioner's appeal is already pending. Hence, at this stage no interference is warranted. I am only inclined to observe that the competent appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal expeditiously preferably within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order. 5. A careful reading of rule 9 makes it clear that it is the date of issuance of charge sheet which is material and not the date of its delivery on the delinquent employee. 6. Petitioner's counsel has not argued that the charge sheet has not been issued within stipulated time. 7. For these cumulative reasons, interference is declined. Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. The appellate authority shall decide the pending appeal of the petitioner within aforesaid time. 8. 6. Petitioner's counsel has not argued that the charge sheet has not been issued within stipulated time. 7. For these cumulative reasons, interference is declined. Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. The appellate authority shall decide the pending appeal of the petitioner within aforesaid time. 8. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 9. Petition is disposed of.