Bhanwarlal Makwana vs Panchayat and Rural Development Department

S.R. Waghmare, J.—By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India petitioner Bhanwarlal Makwana s/o Lunaji has challenged the order dated 30.09.2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by Commissioner, Indore in Appeal No. 509/2013-14.

The singular question raised before this Court by the Counsel for the petitioner was that the charge sheet has not been produced within 90 days and suspension liable to be revoked and set aside. Counsel submitted the facts of the case as follows that the petitioner was working as a Panchayat Karmi/Secretary of Gram Panchayat Chhayan and on 19.04.2006 the respondent No. 3/Collector notified the petitioner as Secretary of Gram Panchayat Chhayan as per Section 69(1) of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993 when suddenly respondent No. 4/Sub-Divisional Officer directed lodging of the FIR against the petitioner u/S. 92(2) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993. He also appeared in the Court of SDO and gave an undertaking that he had completed the allotted works at 12 places. However Counsel submitted that the S.D.O. accepted the bail bond of the petitioner and he also recorded the statement that the petitioner has completed 75% of his construction work and on the basis of undertaking he may be released on bail. However nothing was done in the matter and the suspension order dated 30.08.2014 (Annexure P/2) issued. Counsel for the petitioner has challenged this suspension order as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law in an appeal u/S. 91 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Counsel submitted that the suspension order has been attacked on the ground that more than 100 days had elapsed and contrary of Rule 5-A of Civil Services Book the charge sheet was not produced within 90 days and on this ground alone suspension was liable to be revoked, but all the pleas of Counsel for the petitioner has followed on deaf ears and the respondent/authority has rejected the application for grant of stay vide the impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 30.09.2014 hence this petition.

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the impugned order of suspension is bad in law; primarily 100 days has elapsed and charge sheet has not been given to the petitioner. Counsel placed reliance in the matter of N R Dhangar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Laws (MPH)-1987-11-9, MPLJ-1989-0-21ENDLAWFINDER , this Court held that according to Rule (2-b) of M.P. Civil Service Rules the suspension automatically terminates within a period of 45 days from the date of suspension order, on the delinquent Government servant is not given the charge sheet order articles of charge. Counsel further placed reliance in the matter of State of M.P. Vs. L.P. Tiwari, to state that under identical question the Apex Court has also directed that the competent authority could not sit over the case without prompt follow up action of conducting an inquiry into the alleged misconduct and in the said case the period of suspension was not allowed to continue beyond a period of 90 days for the date of the order of suspension. Counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside and Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/2 be set aside and the petitioner be allowed to continue as Panchayat Karmi of Gram Chhayan.

Per contra, Counsel for the respondents/State has vehemently urged the fact that about two cases cited are under the Civil Service Rules whereas perfectly alternative remedy was available under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and the appeal filed is already pending under Annexure P/8 and the petition could not be entertained when there is an alternative efficacious remedy available. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition.

On considering the above submissions and considering the two citations mentioned above, I find that the suspended employee most know the charges that the delinquent is faced with and in the present circumstances apparently charge sheet has not been served within the stipulated time, but, at the same time the important fact cannot marginalize and blinked away is that appeal is pending consideration before the competent authority.

In this view of the matter, it is directed that competent authority shall decide the appeal within a period of four months from today; till then no coercive action like termination of the employee or any other action under the garb of suspension order shall be done. The competent authority is directed to decide the Annexure P/1 pending before it within the stipulated time by passing a reasoned order in writing. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court again if he is still aggrieved by the order.

Needless to say this Court is not making any observations on the merit of the case.

With the aforesaid observations and directions the petition is allowed to the extent herein above indicated.

Certified copy as per rules.

No costs.