SURESH KUMAR PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who is working as an Asstt. Transport Inspector in the office of Transport Commissioner, Gwalior has filed this petition assailing the order of suspension Annex- ure P/ 1 dated 24-7-2004. While the petitioner was working as an Asstt. Transport Sub Inspector and was posted in Jhhabua, a criminal case no. 17/2000 for having committed offence under Section 13 (1)(E) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against him in the year 2000 and because of involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case vide order dated 23-3-2000 Annexure-P/2 petitioner was suspended by the Transport Commissioner, Gwalior. However, after about two months the order of suspension was revoked on 13-4-2000 vide Annexure-P/3 and petitioner was posted at Check Post, Morena. As per the order Annexure-P/4 petitioner was working in Morena since the said date when all of a sudden he is again suspended by the impugned order. It is the case of the petitioner that now the suspension has been ordered only because certain communication is received by the department from the establishment of the Lokayukt. Inter alia contending that petitioner cannot be suspended again now after four years merely because challan has been filed in the criminal case, petitioner wants intervention by this Court.

(2.) Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner taking me through the proviso of Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1966") argued that an employee can be suspended by the competent authority if the authority finds that during the pendency of any departmental enquiry or a criminal proceeding permitting the petitioner to discharge the duties is deter- mental to the interest of the department. Shri Tiwari argued that in the present case, initially petitioner was suspended thereafter the suspension was revoked and now mechanically without application of mind merely because the Lokayukt organization has intimated and asked for suspension of the petitioner order is passed. Inviting my attention to a judgment rendered by a bench of this Court in somewhat identical situation in the case of another employee of the Department in the case of Rajesh Kumar Trivedi v. State of M.P. and Anr., decided on 13-11-2003 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Govardhandas Bhanji and various other judgment of the Supreme Court reported in para 7 of the order passed by this court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Trivedi (supra), Shri Tiwari learned senior counsel argued that the order of suspension is unsustainable. Shri Tiwari also invites my attention to a similar judgment by the Indore Bench in the case W.P. (S) 1408/2003 of S.D. Muley v. State of M.P. decided on 22-3-2005 in support of his contention.

(3.) Refuting the aforesaid, Shri Brajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the order of suspension is passed from Bhopal, petitioner was involved in a case when he was posted in Jhhabua and, therefore, this Bench does not have territorial jurisdiction. That apart, it was submitted by him that against the order of suspension, petitioner can prefer an appeal to the Governor and, therefore, the petition directly before this court is not maintainable. On merit, Shri Brajesh Sharma argued that while deciding the earlier petition in the case of Rajesh Trivedi (supra) this court has not taken notice of the first proviso to Rule 9 (1) of Rules of 1986 which has been brought into force vide amendment dated 11-4-1996 and according to this rule, when a challan is filed for a criminal offence involving corruption or mortal turpitude, government servant has to be placed under suspension. Accordingly, Shri Sharma argued that as suspension is consequential to the filing of the challan in a criminal case by virtue of the statutory rules brought into force w.e.f. 17-2-1996, no case for interference is made out.