HARNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 11.2.2013 (Annexure P -1), whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension. The order dated 25.3.2014 (Annexure P -2) is also called in question, whereby petitioner's appeal is rejected by the appellate authority.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the suspension order on the ground that he is placed under suspension on filing challan against him before the competent court. Shri Jitendra Sharma submits that as per proviso to Rule 9(1) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the said power can be invoked only when challan is filed after obtaining sanction by competent authority to prosecute the petitioner. It is submitted that in the present case, admittedly, no such sanction is given by the competent authority and, therefore, the suspension is bad in law. Another ground of challenge is that an FIR was registered against the petitioner which was challenged by him in M.Cr.C. No. 323/13. On 21.1.2013, this Court directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner. Thus, in view of this interim protection, issuance of suspension was impermissible. It is submitted that certain co -accused also challenged the FIR by filing similar petitions. Similar interim protection was given to them. They were not placed under suspension. Thus, petitioner is subjected to discriminatory treatment. The appellate order is challenged on the ground that the appellate authority has not decided the appeal on merits and matter was directed to be decided by a Committee constituted as per G.A.D's circular dated 28.1.2013. Lastly, it is submitted that the said Committee has not done anything and, therefore, suspension order needs to be interfered with by this Court.

(3.) SHRI A.S. Rathore, PL opposed the petition.