MANOJ KUMAR KHARE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dtd. 31/7/2023 (Annexure-P/8) whereby he was placed under suspension for the second time. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was initially placed under suspension on 18/4/2019 (Annexure-P/1). However, said order was revoked on 27/11/2020 (Annexure-P/2) because chalan could not be filed in the Court within stipulated time. This second suspension order was unsuccessfully challenged by filing appeal which came to be dismissed on 12/9/2023.

(3.) Criticizing the suspension order, three points are raised by learned counsel for petitioner namely; (i) as per Rule 4(2) of Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (Rules), the petitioner could have been placed under deemed suspension by the appointing authority only when he is either detained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours or he is convicted in the criminal case whereas in the instant case, only chalan has been filed for allegedly committing offence under various provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (ii) the second suspension order shows that it is based on a Circular dtd. 26/2/1998 (Annexure-P/12) issued by General Administration Department (GAD) which is applicable to the employees of State Government or Semi Government establishments but has no application on a Panchayat Secretary and (iii) the petitioner has been suspended to accommodate somebody else which is a malicious exercise of power.