Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandesh Raghuvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2018
...1...
WP-21917-2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.21917/2017
(Sandesh Raghuvanshi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Jabalpur, Dated 01-08-2018.
Mr. Sanjeev Chansoriya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pushpendra Yadav, Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
The petitioner is aggrieved against an order dated 20.01.2017 (Annexure P/1) whereby, application for revocation of suspension of the petitioner has been rejected as only the State Government is competent to take decision regarding revocation of suspension.
The petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard. He was put under suspension due to registration of FIR at Police Station S.T.F. Bhopal in Crime No.04/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Section 3D(1-2) read with Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examinations Act, 1937 and Sections 7, 13(1)
(d)(iii), 13(2) & 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The petitioner claims that the suspensions of many other similarly situated persons have been revoked for the reason that the report has not been presented within specified period whereas, the suspension of petitioner has not been revoked.
...2...
WP-21917-2017 A perusal of the return shows that the District Level Committee considered the case of the suspension of the petitioner on 6.4.2017 and found that since there are serious allegations against the petitioner leading to moral turpitude; therefore, his suspension is not liable to be revoked.
Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the State submits that the State Level Committee considers the cases of revocation of suspension if the same are recommended by District Level Committee. Since there is no recommendation of District Level Committee, the suspension of the petitioner does not warrant consideration by the State Level Committee.
We find that after the order dated 20.01.2017 (Annexure P/1), the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 06.04.2017 has not recommended the revocation of suspension of the petitioner. The State Level Committee is to consider only those cases which are recommended by the District Level Committee.
In view of the said fact, we do not find that the decision making process of rejecting the application regarding revocation of the suspension of the petitioner warrants any interference in exercise of power of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
vinod Chief Justice Judge
Digitally signed by VINOD VISHWAKARMA
Date: 2018.08.02 10:42:57 +05'30'