Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gopal Singh Muvel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 20 th OF MARCH, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 6868 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
GOPAL SINGH MUVEL S/O SHRI MAL SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ACF (SUSPENDED)
ATTACHED AT CCF OFFICE BETUL DISTRICT BETUL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOREST DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI YOGESH DHANDE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Challenge in the present petition has been made to suspension order Annexure P/1.
2. It is the case of the petitioner is that he is holding the post of Assistant Forester in Forest Department. Challan under Sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act has been presented against the petitioner. It is duly admitted during the course of hearing by learned counsel for the petitioner that sanction for prosecution has been accorded by the State Government before presentation of the challan. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued Signature Not Verified that in terms of the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 4/2/2024 6:07:07 PM 2 Suresh Kumar Purohit Vs. State of M.P reported in 2005(4) MPLJ 524, it has been held that even in the case where the challan has been presented for a criminal offence involving moral turpitude and corruption, even then the authorities are required to form an opinion about desirability of the suspension and that suspension is not mandatory in such cases. The authority in such cases has to apply its mind whether suspension is called for even on presentation of challan in criminal case involving moral turpitude. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the present case also similar directions should be issued as per the aforesaid case and the concerned authority be directed to make proper application of mind and then to form an opinion whether the suspension is warranted or not.
3. It is alternatively prayed that an employee cannot be indefinitely placed under suspension and there should be periodical review of feasibility to continue the employee under suspension.
4. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. So far as the ground raised in terms of the judgment of coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Suresh Kumar Purohit (supra) the said judgment has already been distinguished by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.P. Singh Gaharwar 2012 (3) MPLJ 567. The Division Bench of this Court has held that the case of Suresh Purohit (supra) is restricted to its own facts and it cannot be interpreted to infer a general proposition that suspension on presentation of challan is not mandatory. The Division Bench has also held that suspension of employee on presentation of challan for offence involving moral turpitude and corruption is mandatory if the same has been presented after sanction of the State. In the present case it is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the State has granted sanction for prosecuting the petitioner. The Division Bench has also held that in the case of Suresh Kumar Purohit (supra) the suspension order was issued on the instructions of Lokayukta and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 4/2/2024 6:07:07 PM 3 this was one of the reasons for passing of the said order and therefore, the said order has to be restricted to the facts of that case only. The Division Bench has held as under:-
"16. Subsequently, the State Government with a view to further specify and clarify the limit and import of the applicability of the first proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1966, inserted the words "after sanction of prosecution by the Government" in the proviso as it stands today by notification dated 26.2.2007.
17. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the provisions of Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1966, and its legislative history, we are of the considered opinion that the provisions of the first proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1966 mandates that a Government Servant shall without variation, always, without fail, be placed under suspension in case of a charge sheet been filed against him for offences involving corruption or moral turpitude after obtaining sanction for prosecution. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Dasondhi and another vs. State of M.P. and others, ILR (2009) M.P. 2766.
18. In the instant case the charge sheet was filed against the appellant after sanction before the competent court on 4.2.2010 and, therefore, in view of the mandate of the first proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1966, he was required to be placed under suspension but the competent authority did not do so and it was in such circumstances that the Economic Offences Bureau has brought to the notice of the competent authority the provisions of the first proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1966 and the competent authority on realizing the mandate of law has placed the appellant under suspension by order dated 28.10.2010 specifically stating therein that he is being placed under suspension on account of filing of a charge sheet against him on 4.2.2010 before the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is perfectly in conformity with the provisions of the first proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1966.
19. It is clear from a perusal of the impugned order of suspension that the appellant has not been placed under suspension on the dictates of the Economic Offences Bureau as alleged by the appellant but has been placed under suspension in view of the mandate of law and in such circumstances we do not find any merit in the submission of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 4/2/2024 6:07:07 PM 4 appellant to the contrary. In fact we are of the considered opinion that as the case of the appellant falls under the first proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1966 which is mandatory in nature, he was required to be and has rightly been placed under suspension immediately on filing of a charge sheet against him.
20. In view of the fact that the appellant is required to be placed under suspension in accordance with the provision of the proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1966 and the authority has no discretion in the matter, the other issues raised by the appellant regarding veracity of the charges levelled against him, etc., need not be looked into by us as no useful purpose shall be served in doing so. Quite apart from the above, the Supreme Court in the case of U.P Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others vs. Sanjiv Rajan, 1993 Supp.(3) SCC 483 and this Court in the case of Deepa Dubey (Mrs.) vs. Union of India, 2010 (4) MPHT 191, have also stated that while dealing with cases of suspension, the Courts are not required to look into the correctness or authenticity of the charges levelled against a Government Servant. "
6. In view of the above no ground has been made out by the petitioner seeing interference of this Court in the matter of suspension order Annexure P/1 in exercise of writ jurisdiction as the suspension has been ordered after presentation of challan in corruption case after sanction by the State. There is no jurisdictional or procedural infirmity in the said order. This court cannot go into the merits of the allegations of criminal case pending against the petitioner.
7. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. A liberty is however, reserved to the petitioner to seek revocation of suspension in terms of instructions issued by GAD which provides for review of suspension periodically from time to time.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE MISHRA Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 4/2/2024 6:07:07 PM