LAWS(CHH)-2010-4-20

BHARAT RAM SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided On April 29, 2010
BHARAT RAM SAHU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) THIS appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 12-4-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1562/2010 dismissing the said writ petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the appeal and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned second order of suspension. He placed reliance on the decision of M.P. High Court (Gwalior Bench) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 202/1999, Chandra Pal Singh Pundhir Vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal and others, reported in 2002(4) M.P.H.T. 213 (DB), which was filed against the order of learned Single Judge in the writ petition, in which the second order of suspension was under challenge. The learned Single Judge of M.P. High Court has observed that considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Vs. Rajiv Rajan, reported in 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 483, the order passed by the Board, suspending the petitioner again appears to be proper and there is no reason to interfere with the order of the suspension passed by the Board. Similar contention was raised in LPA that the second suspension order amounts to review. Referring to first proviso to clause (1) of Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules in the said case, i.e., Chandra Pal Singh Pundhir (supra), the Division Bench of M.P. High Court observed that the second suspension order was passed by the Chairman of the Board on pendency of Criminal Case No. 2690/1988 against he petitioner and in the second order of suspension, it was specifically mentioned that looking to the nature of criminal case, the second suspension order is passed. Therefore, the Division Bench opined that it is not a review of the first suspension order and further in case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Vs. Rajiv Rajan (supra), it has been clearly laid down by the Apex Court that there is no restriction on the authority to pass a suspension order for the second time.