Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suraj Singh Shikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2018
W.P. No. 5434/2018
1
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH,
JABALPUR
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice SubodhAbhyankar, J
Writ Petition No. 5434/2018
Suraj Singh Shikarwar
Vs.
The State of M.P. and others
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri Vishal Daghat, learned Govt. Advocate for the State /
caveator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on the 19th day of June, 2018)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.2.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent No.1, Secretary, Kutir Avam Gramodyog Department, Bhopal, whereby the services of the petitioner have been suspended.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner is posted as Joint Director in the office of Directorate of Handloom, Bhopal. His services have been suspended vide order dated 28.2.2018 on the ground that in a meeting which took place on 3.2.2018 his conduct towards his superior officers was unwarranted and contrary to the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed with malafide intention, firstly on the ground that no such meeting was ever held on 3.2.2018 and in fact the petitioner has filed the copy of the meeting dated 3.1.2018, which took place at the Madhya Pradesh Health Services W.P. No. 5434/2018 2 Corporation Ltd., Bhopal in which the petitioner had also participated on behalf of his department.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the aforesaid meeting a resolution was passed, which was not signed by the petitioner, as the interest of his department was affected and hence he has made an endorsement in his own handwriting on the said resolution, as such the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner cannot be said to be a misconduct by any stretch of imagination.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has relied upon the following judgments and orders :-
I) (1994) 4 SCC 12;6 (State of Orissa vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty)
ii) (1985) 3 SCC 267 (Ram and Shyam Company Vs. State of Haryana and others)
iii) W.P.No.14176/2017 (Smt. Nahid Jahan Vs. State of M.P. and others), decided on 24.10.2017.
iv) W.P. No. 5906/ 2017 (Sanjeev Kumar Dubey Vs. Commercial Taxes Department), decided on 12.09.2017.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that this Court raised the query on 8.3.2018 to take instructions whether any departmental enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner pursuant to the suspension order dated 28.2.2018 and in respect of said enquiry, Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that in fact the charge sheet has already been issued to the petitioner on 2.4.2018 in which as many as three charges have been framed against him, and as such the petitioner shall have ample opportunity to defend his case. It is further submitted that the impugned order is appealable, as in the impugned order it is clearly mentioned that it has been passed in the name of Governor. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has placed his reliance in the case of State of MP Vs. Manoj Kumar Sharma & another, reported in 2007(3) MPLJ 69 W.P. No. 5434/2018 3 to submit that every order in the name of Governor cannot be said to be an order passed by the Governor himself. It is further submitted that the remedy of appeal is still available to the petitioner before the State Government.
7. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has also relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court :-
i) U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Vs. Sanjiv Rajan; 1993 Supp(3) SCC 483.
ii) Nirmal Jeet Singh Hoon Vs. Irtiza Hussain and others; (2010) 14 SCC 564
iii) State of M.P. and another Vs. Manoj Kumar Sharma;
2007(3) M.P.L.J. 69.
iv) Khursheed Ahmad Vs. Mehtunnisha and another; 2007(3) M.P.L.J. 74.
v) I.K. Mishra Vs. Union of India and others; (1997) 6 SCC 228
vi) Chief General Manager, Telecom and another Vs. G. Mohan Prasad and others; (1999) 6 SCC 67
vii) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mayzur Islam Mallick and others; (1999) 6 SCC 68 and
viii) Ram Suman Hiralal Pandey Vs. Chancellor of Universities, Bhopal ; 2000(1) M.P.L.J. 264
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. From the documents placed by the parties on record this Court finds that there are two meetings held by the M.P. Health Services Corporation wherein the petitioner's department had also participated. The first meeting was held on 3.1.2018 and the petitioner has banked upon the fact that no meeting had ever taken place on 3.1.2018, which has been made basis to level charges W.P. No. 5434/2018 4 against the petitioner, however, the documents placed on record by the respondent reveals that on 3.2.2018 a meeting had taken place at M.P. Public Health Services Corporation Bhopal in which he had refused to sign MOM dated 3.1.2018. The petitoner's contention that he had not signed the document with bonafide intention of protecting the interest of his department, cannot be gone into at this stage as the charge-sheet has already been filed. Apart from that, as submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has remedy of appeal available to him, this Court does not find it a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. As a result, the petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed, however, with the liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of remedy of appeal available to him under the law and if such an appeal is filed within a week's time the same shall be decided by the respondents within a further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
C.C. As per rules.
(Subodh Abhyankar) JUDGE Ansari & Vikram Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2018.06.20 16:33:16 +05'30'