Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 March, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 15th OF MARCH, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 2637 of 2022
Between:-
VINOD KUMAR TIWARI S/O SHRI RADHIKA
PRASAD TIWARI , AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MDHYAMIK SHIKSHAK
(SUSPENDED) GOVT. EXCELLENCE HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAIHAR, DISTT. SATNA
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI A.K RAI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION GAUTAM
NAGAR, BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SATNA
DISTRICT SATNA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JOINT DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, REWA
DIVISION REWA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER SATNA DISTRICT
SATNA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. PRINCIPAL GOVT. EXCELLENCE HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAIHAR DISTRICT SATNA
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAMOD PANDEY, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01/04/2021 passed by the respondents whereby the petitioner suspension has not been revoked despite the expiry of period of 45 days maximum 90 days from the date Signature Not Verified of suspension. As charge sheet has not been given to the petitioner till date. It is SAN Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.04.13 12:30:48 IST submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 2 01/04/2021 in terms of Rule 9 of M.P Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 on the ground that on 24/03/2021, the petitioner misbehaved with Class 11th student in school hours and she has lodged the FIR against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.316/2021 for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and Section 9, 10 of POCSO Act at Police Station Miahar. It is alleged that action is comes under the category of misconduct, which is contrary to Rule 3 of M.P Civil Services (Conduct) Rule, 1965. Therefore, the petitioner has been suspended with immediate effect. It is argued that the petitioner has preferred a detailed representation before the respondents No.3 to revocation of his suspension since he has not received any charge sheet. It is argued that he has been falsely implicated in criminal case, he is not committed in any offence in any manner and never misbehave with student/complainant and all of sudden the petitioner has received the charge sheet on 01/10/2021 vide letter dated 01/04/2021 vide dispatch number 190 wherein one charge has been leveled against the petitioner. It is alleged that in view of the notification dated 20/05/1992 issued by the General Administrative Department with respect to revocation or suspension of the Government Employee holding that the charge sheet has not been issued within 90 days then the said time shall be extended with due permission from Government and even after the extending of time, the charge sheet has not been issued then the suspension order automatically revoked. Another notification dated 30/08/2002 has been filed along with the petition to substantiate the arguments if the charge sheet has not within 45 days, the suspension order will revoke automatically. After receiving the charge sheet he has submitted the reply to the charge sheet wherein he has mentioned all the relevant facts and stated that the petitioner has been suspended without conducting an preliminary enquiry because the allegations made against the petitioner is totally false and frivolous. The incident took place on 24/03/2021 and the report has been lodged on 28/03/2021, whereas the student has been continuously coming to the School from 24/03/2021 to 28/03/2021. The statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C for the complainant has been recorded Signature Not Verified wherein she has admitted that the false FIR has been registered against the SAN Digitally signed by PRARTHANA petitioner. He was placed under suspension on 01/04/2021 and after 180 days SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.04.13 12:30:48 IST charge sheet has been issued. Therefore, in terms of the C.C.A rules, the 3 petitioner suspension would have been revoked. It is argued that the petitioner is doing his duty with utmost, devotion and sincerity and the certificate has been issued by an District Education Officer, Maihar, Satna regarding attendance of the petitioner from 01/04/2021 to 31/07/2021. The petitioner has approached the authorities for submitting his joining on 12/01/2022 but in pursuance of circulars issued by the State Government, the respondents No.6 refused to allow joining of the petitioner. It is argued that in similar circumstances, once Rohani Prasad Pandey, Madhyamik Shiksha was also placed under suspension on 09/11/2020 on the basis of an FIR registered against him, the suspension has been revoked by the Joint Director Public Instructions, Rewa Division, Rewa.
He has placed reliance upon the judgements passed by the various Courts in W.P No.7554/2020, decided on 03/06/2020, W.P No.16202/2017, decided on 17/02/2018 and W.P No.3636/2017, decided on 19/04/2017. Thus, the action has not revoking the suspension order, petition is perse illegal and direction to the respondent/authorities to revoke the suspension order.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court with incorrect facts and has suppressed the material information before this Court. It is pointed out that the FIR was registered against the petitioner owing to his illegal activities and misbehavior with the girl student of Class 11th for which the offence under Section 354 of IPC and POCSO Act has been registered against him. It is submitted that he has challenged the legality and validity of order dated 01/04/2021 i.e suspension order and has prayed for revocation of suspension order owing to the fact that charge sheet has not been issued to the petitioner within 45 days or 90 days from the date of suspension order. It is argued that the aforesaid aspects are misconceived, baseless and incorrect owing to the fact that after registration of an FIR against the petitioner, the petitioner was absconding to avoid his arrest and has never cooperated with the Authorities. It is submitted that the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and the same was duly served upon the wife of the petitioner which was received by her. As the petitioner was Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.04.13 12:30:48 IST absconding and not traceable owing to registration of a criminal case against him.
4The aforesaid aspect does not been placed before this Court by the petitioner. It is further submitted that a decision has been taken by the respondent authorities to conduct a departmental equiry against the petitioner vide order dated 01/04/2021, wherein in case an Assistant Director has been appointed as an enquiry Officer Shri C.B Singh as presenting Officer in the matter. The petitioner is not cooperating with the departmental enquiry and trying to take the aid of the fact on the technical ground that the charge sheet has not been served upon the petitioner despite of the fact that the charge sheet was duly received by his wife. By filling an additional reply the respondent has brought to the notice by this Court that with respect to the certificate issued by the District Education Officer, Satna regarding attendance of the petitioner from 01/04/2021 to 31/07/2021. The Committee was constituted to enquire into the aforesaid aspects. An enquiry report has been submitted by the Committee on 09/03/2022, wherein the finding has been recorded suspension order in the charge sheet where properly served by the Office of Block Education Officer, Majhgavan. The petitioner adduced the documents for attendance certificate but the relevancy of the documents is doubtful because as per the document showing invert dispatch No. 2683, wherein dispatch number has not appeared in the serial of the dispatch of the original register of the Office of Block Education Officer. So according to the original dispatch register the petitioner has filed false and fabiolus and fabricated documents. It appears that the petitioner has again done another misconduct just to take advantage of the same. Regarding the fact that the petitioner has working with the utmost, devotion and sincerity. It is pointed out that the principal Government High Secondary Boys School, Maihar, Satna has imposed a penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect which have been imposed by the Commission Public Instruction, Bhopal against the principal of the said schools. Therefore, the petitioner was not serving his institution with utmost devotion and sincerity. Since, once the suspension order as well as the charge sheet has been received by the wife of the petitioner owing to the fact that the petitioner was absconding and just Signature Not Verified to avoid his arrest. Therefore, no illegality could be pointed out in the matter.
SAN Digitally signed by PRARTHANAPetitioner is having a remedy to challenged the suspension order or the SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.04.13 12:30:48 IST charge sheet by filling an appropriate proceedings before the Appellate Authority.
5He has prayed for dismissal of this petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it is seen that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in connection with Crime No. 316/2021 for offence under Section 354 of IPC and Section 9, 10 of POCSO Act, which is pending consideration. In view of registration of a criminal case with respect to cognizable offence against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension. The petitioner was avoiding his arrest in the criminal case, therefore, he was not traceable. The charge sheet was issued to the petitioner which was duly served upon the wife of the petitioner as the petitioner was absconding and his avoiding his arrest. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the petitioner has not received the charge sheet as far as marking of attendance by the petitioner during the intervening period from 01/04/2021 to 31/07/2021. The aforesaid facts was duly verified by conducting an enquiry into the matter, it was found that the invert register showing does not contained the aforesaid serial number.
In such circumstances, the aforesaid documents appears to be false, frivolous and fabricated documents. Just to take the advantage the petitioner has procured such documents and has committed an other misconduct. The criminal case is still pending against the petitioner and not been closed till date.
In such circumstances, no case for interference directing that the authorities for revocation of suspension order has been made out. Petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy of challenging the suspension order by the Superior Authorities and also the charge sheet. The Authorities have already decided to take a disciplinary action against the petitioner for which the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer have already been appointed.
Taking into consideration, the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no case for grant of relief is made out.
Petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by PRARTHANA (VISHAL MISHRA)JUDGE SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.04.13 12:30:48 IST Prar 6 Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.04.13 12:30:48 IST