AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 340 wordsSujoy Paul, Judge
Shri Nayak is heard on admission. Petitioner, a Panchayat Secretary has assailed the suspension order passed by the Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.) in this writ petition. Shri Nayak has assailed this order by raising two points:- (1) It is alleged in the suspension order that petitioner has not submitted his reply to the show-cause notice, which is factually incorrect because petitioner submitted the reply Annexure-P/5 to the show-cause notice, which was sent by registered post and by order dated 15/03/2012 it is endorsed by the C.E.O. that reply was received. (2) The allegations made against the petitioner are factually incorrect.
I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
Shri Nayak fairly admitted that the order Annexure-P/1 is appealable under the Rules. The stand that the allegations are factually incorrect and suspension order is passed on incorrect grounds cannot be gone into at this stage. Whether petitioner had already submitted reply to the show-cause notice and whether it reached to its destination is a question of fact. No jurisdictional error is pointed out by the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner are factually incorrect or not cannot also be gone into at this stage when only the suspension order is passed, which in service jurisprudence is not treated as punitive. A Division Bench of this Court in State of M.P. and Others Vs. Ashok Sharma, has taken this view and held that where alternative statutory remedy is available, the employee should be relegated to avail the same. The same view is taken in S.A. Khan Vs. State of Haryana and others, which reads as under:-
29........ 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.
Considering the aforesaid, I find no reason to interfere in this matter. No other point is pressed by the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is not entertained. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy under the rules.