CHANDRAPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of placing him under suspension, vide Annexure P/11 dated 1.2.2007, under proviso to Rule 9(1)(b) of the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,1966. It is mentioned in the order impugned, because challan has filed against him on 13.10.2006 in Crime No.21/2005 in the Court of Special Judge and First Addl.Sessions Judge, Indore, therefore, he is required to be placed under suspension.

(2.) Shri D.D.Vyas, senior counsel submits that under rule 9(1) (b) proviso thereof of the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,1966, the Govt.servant may invariably be placed under suspension when a challan for a criminal offence involving corruption or other moral turpitude is filed against him. In the present case the challan under Section 7, 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has not been filed against him, however, it cannot be said that the petitioner was involved in the criminal case of corruption or other moral turpitude. It is further said, the Government has not granted sanction to file prosecution against him, even under Section 193/218 of the I.P.C. Thus merely on filing of the challan against petitioner, passing an order of suspension without considering the rules is arbitrary and without due appliclation of mind. He has filed the certified copy of the order dated 16.3.2007 passed by the Special Judge, First Addl.Sessions Judge, Indore discharging the petitioner under Section 193/218 itself, however, it is urged that now the reason for which the petitioner is placed under suspension, no more in existence, therefore, the order of suspension passed by the respondents is liable to be quashed.

(3.) On the first date of hearing while recording the contention of the petitioner it was observed that challan under Section 7,13(1) (d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not filed against him, but it is under Section 193/218 of I.P.C.alongwith other persons. The permission sought, by the prosecution to file challan against petitioner was refused by the Law Department on 22.8.2006. The Law Department refused the permission, to prosecute petitioner even u/s 193/218 of the I.P.C. Since challan was filed by the Special Establishment Lokayukt against petitioner in the Court of Special Judge, First Addl.Sessions Judge, however petitioner was placed under suspension. Considering the aforesaid Govt.Advocate was directed to file reply within two weeks and the case was listed on 26.2.2007. On that date reply was not available, however, as per request of Govt.Advocate it was fixed for further hearing on 7.3.2007. On that date the Govt.Advocate has further sought time to file reply, however, it was adjourned, observing that, reply ought to have file by next date, otherwise this Court shall constrain to pass the order, on interim relief. Today again the Govt.Advocate prayed for time to file reply. On the other hand Shri D.D.Vyas, senior counsel appearing for petitioner has produced the certified copy of the order dated 17.3.2007 passed by the Special Judge and First Addl.Sessions Judge, Indore in Special Case No.5/2006, indicating that application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner, to discharge him from the said prosecution, has been allowed and the petitioner has been discharged by the Court even under Section 193/218 of I.P.C.in which challan was filed against him.