AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sujoy Paul, Judge
Petitioner is heard on admission. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenge is made to order dated 9.3.2012 (Annexure P/1) whereby petitioner is placed under suspension by invoking Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
The main thrust of the argument of Shri Katare is that the petitioner is not responsible for the allegations on which he has been placed under suspension and somebody else (Narendra Kumar Shrivastava) is responsible for the same. He submits that suspension order is passed in a routine manner without application of mind and, therefore, this Court should interfere. He relied on Satwati Deswal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, to submit that alternative remedy is not a bar for this Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Admittedly, the impugned order dated 9.3.2012 is an appelable order. The correctness of allegations cannot be examined at this stage. Although alternative remedy is not a bar for exercising writ jurisdiction of this Court, it is all the same a discretion and not a compulsion to always exercise such a discretion; more so, when 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.
In the light of aforesaid, I find no justification to interfere at this stage. Petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal and exhaust his departmental 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. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.