BRIJ KISHORE LAHARIYA Vs. STATE OF M.P., DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, M.P. BHOPAL, DIST EDUCATION OFFICER, DIST. BHIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is heard on admission. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenge is made to order dated 9.3.2012 (Annexure P/1) whereby petitioner is placed under suspension by invoking Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

(2.) THE main thrust of the argument of Shri Katare is that the petitioner is not responsible for the allegations on which he has been placed under suspension and somebody else (Narendra Kumar Shrivastava) is responsible for the same. He submits that suspension order is passed in a routine manner without application of mind and, therefore, this Court should interfere. He relied on : (2010) 1 SCC 126 (Satwati Deswal vs. State of Haryana and others) to submit that alternative remedy is not a bar for this Court.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.