Pramod Kumar Barua vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, Judge

With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard. Petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 16.7.2012 (Annexure P-1) in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold contentions to assail this order - (i) The allegations mentioned in the suspension order are incorrect and not sustainable, and (ii) the petitioner is suspended in a malicious manner because vide Annexure P-12 dated 14.7.2012 somebody else has been transferred in place of the petitioner and to accommodate him petitioner is placed under suspension. He submits that suspension order is malafide in nature.

By drawing attention of this Court on various documents learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suspension is totally uncalled for and unwarranted and if those documents are perused minutely, no case or allegation can sustain which is mentioned in the suspension order.

Learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, supported the order, Annexure P-1.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This is settled in law that suspension order is not treated as punitive in nature in service jurisprudence. At this stage when the petitioner is placed under suspension, there is no scope to enter into the correctness of the charge/allegations which are mentioned in the suspension order. A Division Bench of this Court in State of M.P. and Others Vs. Ashok Sharma, held that correctness of charges at the stage of suspension cannot be gone into by a writ court. The Apex Court in S.A. Khan Vs. State of Haryana and others, ) in para 29 has held that suspension order is not punitive in nature and at this stage no interference is warranted.

Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, at this stage it cannot be examined whether the allegations mentioned against the petitioner in the suspension order are correct or not. This will be looked into in the disciplinary proceedings/appropriate proceedings by the competent authority and at this stage there is no scope of judicial review of the correctness of allegations.

So far the allegation of malafide is concerned, for making allegation of malafide minimum requirement is to implead the competent authority to nomine. In absence thereof no allegation of malafide can be attributed. This view has been taken by the Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, and recently followed by Division Bench of this Court in 2011 (3) MPHT 479 (Bhagwat Singh Verma vs. State of MP and others).

On the basis of aforesaid, no allegation of malafide can be alleged by the petitioner. Petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed.