Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandra Pal Singh Pundhir vs M.P. Board Of Secondary Education And ... on 18 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: [2002(95)FLR1104], 2002(4)MPHT213
ORDER R.B. Dixit, J.
1. The petitioner/appellant has challenged before the learned Single Judge his second order of suspension. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has observed that considering the ratio of the decision in the case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Rajiv Rajan, reported in [1993 Supp. (3) SCC 483] the order passed by the Board, suspending the petitioner again appears to be proper. There is no reason to interfere with the order of suspension passed by the Board.
2. The learned Counsel of appellant relying upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and Anr. v. Omprakash Gupta and Anr., reported in 2001(2) MPLJ 690, contended that the order of second suspension amounts to review. However, on perusal of the second order of suspension (Annexure P-1) it appears to us that the petitioner was first suspended on account of his arrest in a criminal case under Sections 420, 467, 460 and 472, IPC registered at Police Station, Hanumanganj, Bhopal. The first order of suspension was revoked by 7-9-1993 by the order of Sachiv, Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Thereafter the second order of suspension under question was passed by order of the Chairman of the Board and was passed on the pendency of the Criminal Case No. 2690/98 against the petitioner. In second order of suspension it was specifically mentioned that looking to the nature of the criminal case the second suspension order is passed. In the circumstances, in our opinion it is not a review of the first suspension order.
3. The second proviso to Clause (1) of Rule 29 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 provides that no power to review shall be exercised by the head of department unless, (i) the authority which made the order in appeal, or (ii) the authority to which an appeal would lie, where no appeal has been preferred, is subordinate to him. In the present case the second order of suspension has not been passed by superior authority to the appellate authority. Therefore, the order cannot be treated to be a review.
4. The Apex Court in the case of U.P. Rajya Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Rajiv Rajan (supra) has made it clear that there is no restriction on the authority to pass a suspension order second time. The first order might be withdrawn by the authority on the ground at that stage, the evidence appearing against the delinquent employee is not sufficient or for some reason, which is not connected with the merits of the case. In the present case also there is no restriction for second suspension order under the Rules. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in the present case.
5. The appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.