Dr. Vishal Kadam vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

This petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief:

"i) That, the order impugned dated 19.02.2020 (Annexure- P/1) passed by the Respondents may kindly be quashed with all consequential effects, in the interest of justice.

ii) That, the respondents be directed to review the order of suspension date 19.02.2020 keeping in view of the law laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), in accordance with law.

iii) That, the respondents be further directed to allow that petitioner to perform his duties at present place of posting with a further direction the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension without verifying Ph.D. Degree of the petitioner from concerning University.

iv) That, any other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including the costs throughout may also be granted."

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that considering the principles of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India as reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, the Principal Bench of this Court has stayed the suspension order by passing an interim order and therefore, the suspension order of the petitioner may also be stayed for the simple reason that the authorities have not reviewed the suspension order of the petitioner after expiry of 90 days. It is further submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the suspension order is also pending before the appellate authority, which has not been decided so far.

Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that an interim order cannot be treated as a precedent. Further by judgment passed in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the authorities have been directed to review the suspension order, therefore, the discretion is with the authority to decide as to whether the continuation of suspension of the delinquent officer is in the interest of justice or not.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Undisputedly, the charge sheet has already been issued.

So far as the question of review of suspension order after expiry of 90 days is concerned, it is for the authorities to decide as to whether in the light of the allegations made against delinquent officer, suspension order is required to be continued or not. That discretion exclusively vests with the authorities and this Court cannot stay the suspension order merely on the ground that the authorities have not reviewed the order within the period of 90 days. Even otherwise, why petitioner has not approached the authorities by making a representation for review of his suspension?

At this stage it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that he may be permitted to make an application before the authorities for review of his suspension order and the authorities may be directed to decide the said representation as early as possible. It is further submitted that the appeal, which is preferred by the petitioner against the suspension order may also be directed to be decided at the earliest.

Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that the appeal, which has been filed by the petitioner, may be decided as early as possible without any delay.

So far as the review of the suspension order after 90 days is concerned, the allegations against the petitioner are that he had submitted forged Ph.D. Degree, which according to the Counsel for the respondents is a serious misconduct by the petitioner who is working as Asstt. Professor and is alleged to have gains on the basis of forged Ph.D. Degree.

The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) has held as under :

We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension.

It is for the authorities to consider as to whether the suspension order should be continued or not? Since, the charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, the authorities are directed to review and pass a reasoned order, if they are of the view that the suspension order is to be extended.

With the aforesaid observation, this petition is finally disposed.