Virendra Kumar vs State of M.P. and Another

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19/04/2017

(Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.1 whereby petitioner who was working at the relevant point of time as Additional District Collector,

District Sheopur has been placed under suspension.

Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner was holding the post of Additional Collector, Sheopur w.e.f. 31/10/2015 till relevant point of

time when he was placed under suspension. While working as Additional Collector, petitioner passed an order dated 04/02/2017 whereby

permission to sale the Bhoodan land was granted which allegedly irked the intervenor Dashrath Singh Parihar and being Bureau Chief of Dainik

Bhaskar, he published an article which found to be derogatory and contemptuous by the petitioner and therefore, proceedings under the Contempt

of Courts Act, 1971 was drawn by the petitioner against Dashrath Singh Parihar and issued notice to him in this regard. It appears that notice

could not be served over the intervenor therefore, bailable warrants were issued but same also rendered futile and could not be executed.

Therefore, it appears that when the intervenor visited the office of Collector, District-Sheopur then on information so received, petitioner called the

intervenor through his security guard passed imposing fine of Rs.200/- and on non-deposit of it, intervenor-Dashrath Singh Parihar was taken into

custody and sent to the jail where he remained in jail for 1 day and thereafter released. The said event precipitated the chain of reactions including

passing of the impugned order dated 19/04/2017 which is under challenge before this Court.

According to counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is contrary to law because petitioner sent the intervenor to jail while exercising the

powers as Quasi Judicial Authority/ Judge. Petitioner cannot be placed under suspension because of the protection he enjoyed as per the Judges

(Protection) Act, 1985. The suspension is arbitrary and illegal . He prayed for setting aside of the suspension order.

Learned counsel for the respondents/ State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner by filing reply and submits that petitioner has allowed the

land belonging to Bhoodan which is not permissible because Bhoodan land cannot be sold and the present cost of the land is around 65 lacks per

hectare and valued around 67,92,500/- therefore, the land which could not have been sold was permitted to be sold by the petitioner therefore, he

has rightly been placed under suspension. Similarly, respondents also supported the impugned order on the basis of action undertaken by the

petitioner against the Bureau Chief of Dainik Bhaskar and Dashrath Singh Parihar. He also referred the provisions of Rule 23 of the M.P. Civil

Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and submits that alternative remedy is available.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition.

From perusal of the impugned suspension order, it appears that the said order nowhere clarifies the reason for suspension. It only refers Rule

3(3) of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 for placing the petitioner under suspension.

Although respondents in the return have clarified the position for which petitioner has been placed under suspension and has also raised the point

of alternative remedy as provided under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1966. It is also apparent that vide order dated 25/04/2017 passed by this Court,

while issuing notice to the other side, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 19/04/2017 (Annexure P/1) was stayed therefore, in the

fitness of things, looking to the over all fact situation of the case, it would be apposite to relegate the petitioner back to the appellate Authority for

consideration of his appeal against the order dated 19/04/2017 placing him under suspension. Therefore, petitioner is directed to prefer an appeal

within 15 days from the date of passing of this order to the appellate authority. If the petitioner prefers an appeal alongwith certified copy of this

order within 15 days from the date of passing of this order to the appellate authority, then appellate authority is directed to ponder over the appeal

and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law under due intimation to the petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as

possible preferably within 3 months from the date of preferring of the appeal before the appellate authority.

Since petitioner is enjoying interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 25/04/2017 therefore, the said interim protection would be

available to the petitioner till the appeal is decided by the appellate authority. However, appellate authority may take independent decision without

being influenced by the effect that this Court granted stay over the effect and operation of the suspension order dated 19/04/2017 (Annexure P/1)

and pass the order on its own merits.

Petition stands disposed of in above terms.