ASHOK NORONHA Vs. M A KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order-dated 13. 3. 2008 passed by the State Government suspending the petitioner under Rule 9 read with Rule 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules)1966 [hereinafter referred to as 'rules of 1966'], petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Managing director of Madhya Pradesh Laghu Udyog Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'nigam'), on 26. 7. 2002. On 3. 8. 2004 one Shri Ashish Upadhyay was posted as Managing Director of this Nigam. At that point of time there was no order pertaining to posting of the petitioner. However, petitioner was thereafter designated as Additional Managing Director of the Nigam and allowed to function in the said capacity. Vide order-dated 31. 1. 2005, the State Government appointed the petitioner as Managing Director of Madhya Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to as 'board') after taking over his services in the Commerce and Industries Department temporarily and until further orders. It is the cases of the petitioner that this posting in the Board was in fact an order of deputation, which was issued without consent of the petitioner.

(3.) CHALLENGING the order appointing Shri Ashish Upadhyay as Managing director and sending the petitioner on deputation to the Board, Writ Petition no. 1632/2005 (S) has been filed by the petitioner, which is also heard and decided analogously alongwith this petition. Petitioner claims that during the pendency of writ Petition No. 1632/2005, vide order-dated 8. 8. 2006, State Government repatriated the petitioner to his parent department i. e. . . Nigam, and when no post on which petitioner was to work on repatriation in the parent department was indicated, petitioner filed an interim application in Writ Petition No. 1632/2005 (S)which was rejected on 4. 11. 2006 and, therefore, petitioner filed Writ Appeal no. 1159/2006. On 23. 11. 2006, notice was issued by the Division Bench in the said Writ Appeal and a direction was issued that petitioner should be permitted to continue as Managing Director of the Board. However, in between when the petitioner was suspended by the impugned order dated 13. 3. 2008, vide Annexure p/1, petitioner brought this fact to the notice of the Division Bench, where the writ Appeal was pending. Initially, the Division Bench took a serious note of the manner in which petitioner was suspended, but finally the Writ Appeal was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, due to suspension of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that suspension of the petitioner ordered by the impugned order is illegal and cannot be sustained.