VIMAL KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dtd. 24/11/2025 (Annexure P/4), whereby the representation for revocation of suspension was rejected, as well as the initial suspension order dtd. 26/3/2025.

(2.) The petitioner further seeks the grant of subsistence allowance and its subsequent arrears. It is contended that the rejection of the revocation prayer is erroneous, as the respondents failed to consider that the underlying criminal case was registered in 2021 and has not yet progressed to the framing of charges. The petitioner maintains that he is not responsible for the delay in the trial. The petitioner relies on the policy dtd. 28/1/2013 regarding the review of suspension orders, which stipulates that if a trial is delayed for reasons not attributable to the employee, the suspension may be revoked. However, the impugned order dtd. 24/11/2025 is silent regarding the causes of the trial's delay. Consequently, the petitioner argues that both the rejection order and the continued suspension are illegal, asserting that suspension cannot be maintained for an indefinite period.

(3.) Previously, the petitioner approached the Court in W.P. No. 40723/2025, which was disposed of on 14/10/2025. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation and instructed Respondent No. 2 to decide the pending appeal through a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days. In purported compliance, the respondents rejected the representation, citing the petitioner's failure to report the registration of the offence to the office and stating that no "solid ground" for revocation existed while the criminal case remained pending.