Ambresh Kumar Dubey vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, Judge

Petitioner is heard on admission. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenge is made to the suspension order dated 7.3.2012 (Annexure P/1).

Shri Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the order on the ground that it is passed in a routine manner and while passing the order respondents have not taken into account the reply submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure P/11 and also the complaints, Annexures P/6 to P/8 against the respondent No.4. Shri Khan has taken pains to demonstrate that factually the petitioner should not have been placed under suspension.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record.

Petitioner has made an incorrect declaration in para 3 of the petition that there is no other alternative remedy but to challenge the impugned order. Under Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the suspension order is appelable order. There is a statutory appellate remedy available to the petitioner.

This is settled in law that correctness of allegations cannot be gone into at this stage. This Court is under no obligation to conduct a roving enquiry to examine the desirability or correctness of the allegations of suspension order, Annexure P/1. Petitioner has a remedy of appeal. A Division Bench of this Court in 2011 (2) MPLJ 206 (State of

M.P. and others vs. Ashok Sharma (Dr.) held that correctness of charges cannot be examined at this stage. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-

Correctness of the allegations of Departmental Enquiry cannot be determined by making roving enquiry in the matter of suspension.

Petitioner was having the remedy of appeal also, appeal has to be decided by an higher body as compared to the authority ordering the suspension. Thus, in view of availability of remedy of appeal also, no interference is warranted in the order of suspension. Apart from that continuance of petitioner was to adversely affect the pending enquiry hence suspension was warranted.

A bare perusal of this judgment shows that neither on the correctness of charges nor on availability of alternative remedy it is proper to interfere in a suspension order. The Apex Court also took this view in S.A. Khan Vs. State of Haryana and others, Paragraph 29 of the said judgment reads as under:

Above all, we are inclined to dismiss this writ petition since it is only a suspension order and there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner.

On the basis of aforesaid legal position, I find no reason to interfere in the suspension order. In the result, petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail the aforesaid alternative remedy. It be noted that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and petition is not entertained because of availability of alternative remedy.