Dr. Vachespate Sharma vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22-08-2013 Annexure P/1 to the extent that on revocation of suspension he is posted elsewhere. Petitioner was placed under suspension by the order of Health Commissioner/Controlling Authority on 27-05-2013 Annexure P/2. By the order Annexure P/1, petitioner''s suspension was revoked and he was directed to join in District Hospital Datia whereas he was placed under suspension from Gwalior. Shri Katare submits that as per the judgment of Division Bench reported in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and Others Vs. Dr. R.K. Shahstri and Another, , this is impermissible.

Shri Newaskar supported the order impugned Annexure P/1.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

In the opinion of this Court, the point involved in this matter is no more res integra. This Court in a recent judgment Dheer Singh Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, has opined that:

Thus, the only substantive or statutory right of the petitioner was to occupy a substantive post which he was holding before suspension, on revocation of the suspension. He has no statutory, legal or constitutional right to get reinstated on a place from where the petitioner was placed under suspension. In absence of showing and establishing any substantive, legal, vested or constitutional right, I am unable to hold that the respondent No. 2 has erred in reinstating the petitioner at Chanderi. In Sri Vilas Ramesh Chand Tarhate (supra) the Division Bench of this Court opined as under:-

True it is, in the case at hand an order of suspension was passed and later on it was revoked, but revocation of the order of suspension does not confer a premium on the officer concerned to treat it as a privilege and put forth a claim as a matter of right to be retained at the place where he was posted.

(Emphasis Supplied)

In the aforesaid judgment, it was held that petitioner has no lien at a place and he has lien on a post. Suspension is not punishment, therefore, the authority who has suspended the petitioner has inherent power to revoke the suspension and post the person at different place. The judgment in Dr. R.K. Shastri was distinguished on the ground that in the said case, Division Bench was examining the powers of appellate authority under Rule 27(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. In view of this legal position, petition has no merit.

Apart from this, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is always open to the disciplinary/controlling authority to revoke the suspension and post the employee at different place than the place from where he was placed under suspension. One such reason may be to keep the employee away from the witnesses, record and other material by posting him elsewhere and in the same time permitting him to work and not to pay him subsistence allowance while sitting idle. On the basis of Dheer Singh Yadav (supra), I find no merit in the present petition. Petition is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed.