Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yatindra Kumar Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-2609-2018
(YATINDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 12-02-2018
Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.S. Chouhan, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner in the question of interim relief. The petitioner, who is working on the post of Assistant Quality Controller, has filed this petition challenging the order of suspension dated 12.10.2017 passed by sh respondent no.2 on the ground of certain illegalities committed by him.
The petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that it is contrary to e ad the Staff Regulations framed by the respondent organization. He submits that the Rule 23 of the said regulation provides for the procedure about suspension according to Pr Regulation 23(1) an employee may be placed under suspension pending an enquiry a against him for breach of discipline or any criminal case involving moral turpitude is hy pending against him. He further submits that in the present case, the order or ad suspension dated 12.10.2017 does not refer that whether any Departmental Enquiry is pending against him or any criminal offence involving moral turpitude. He further M submits that no charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner although a period of more of than 90 days have been passed. In such circumstances, he submits that the operation of the impugned order of suspension dated 12.10.2017 be stayed.
rt On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents who appeared on advance ou copy submits that the order of suspension has been passed due to the illegalities C committed by the petitioner. He further submits that under the Regulations no period of limitation has been prescribed for issuance of the charge sheet. He further submits that h ig it is not necessary to mention in the order of suspension regarding pendency of the H departmental enquiry of the criminal case against the petitioner. In light of the aforesaid, he submits that the petitioner is not entitle to get any interim relief.
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. Respondent organization has framed the Regulation known Madhya Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations, 1962. The Regulation 23 provides for the procedure about suspension. As per the said regulation, an employee may be placed under suspension pending an enquiry against him for breach of discipline or any criminal offence involving more turpitude is pending against him. In the present case, from perusal of the order of suspension, it has no were stated that any disciplinary enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner nor it is mentioned that any criminal case involving moral turpitude is pending against him. It is also to be noted that no charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner although a period of more than 90 days have been passed. Although there is no period of limitation has been prescribed under the Regulations for issuance of charge sheet but an employee cannot be placed under suspension for an indefinite period.
In such circumstances, the operation of the impugned order dated 12.10.2017 is hereby stayed, till next date of hearing.
Respondents is granted four weeks' time to file reply. List the case after four weeks.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MISS VANDANA KASREKAR) JUDGE e sh ad Tabish Pr a Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD TABISH KHAN hy Date: 2018.02.16 15:37:20 +05'30' ad M of rt ou C h ig H