PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this petition has been considered and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.

(2.) The present petition is being filed being aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2020 by the respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. It is argued that the rules namely M.P. Municipal Council (Executive) Rules 1973 has wrongly been applied in the case of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is working as a Revenue Sub-Inspector and is governed by the rules namely M.P. Municipal Council Employees (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules 1968. It is submitted that the aforesaid aspect was considered and dealt with by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition No.5699/2017 (Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Another) vide order dated 23.02.2018, wherein the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner under the Rules of 1973 but subsequently the petition was disposed off holding that the petitioner's services were governed by the Rules of 1968. It is argued that the aforesaid order was duly put to challenge before the Division Bench by the State Authorities and the writ appeal was rejected. It is argued that although the remedy of the appeal is available to the petitioner but owing to the fact that by application of wrong rules, the petitioner has been placed under suspension, therefore, as the respondent No.2 was having no authority to place the petitioner under suspension as the petitioner is only holding a current charge and his lien is in the parent department.

(3.) Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and has argued that the remedy of appeal available to the petitioner as the order impugned is only with respect to suspension of the petitioner. The petitioner in para 3 of the petition has submitted that he has availed all the statutory and other remedies available to him but the fact remains that the remedy of appeal is available with the petitioner against the suspension order available to the petitioner. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Sharma vs. State of M.P. & Anr . reported in 2007 (1) MPJR 122 wherein it has held that in similar circumstances, the State Authorities were having right to place the similarly situated person like the petitioner under suspension even if he is holding a current charge considering the Rule of 1973. It is submitted that the petitioner may avail the alternative efficacious remedy available to him. The aforesaid judgment was not brought to the consideration of the Court in the earlier round of litigation. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.