LAXMI PRASAD PATEL Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-521
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on February 06,2018

Laxmi Prasad Patel Appellant
VERSUS
State of M.P. and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SUJOY PAUL,J. - (1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 14.07.2017, whereby petitioner's suspension order dated 04.08.2016 which was kept in abeyance, is directed to be implemented.
(2.) Draped in brevity, the relevant facts for proper adjudication of this matter are that the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 04.08.2016. Petitioner assailed it by filing W.P. No.13372/2016. This Court by order dated 22.08.2016, stayed the operation of said suspension order. Resultantly, the suspension order was kept in abeyance by the department. In turn, aforesaid writ petition was finally heard and dismissed by order dated 23rd June, 2017. The said dismissal order passed by the Writ Court is now subject matter of adjudication in W.A. No.596/2017.
(3.) Mr. Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced two fold submissions. Firstly, it is submitted that this Court has only stayed the effect and operation of suspension order which did not prevent the disciplinary authority to issue the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet was admittedly issued on 07.04.2017 i.e., during the pendency of aforesaid writ petition. Thus, employer cannot justify their action on belatedly issued charge-sheet and resultantly cannot escape from the liability of revocation of suspension in view of Clause 52.1.3 of the Service Rules. Secondly, it is contended that petitioner was suspended on 04.08.2016 and charge-sheet was issued beyond 90 days' i.e., on 07.04.2017. Accordingly, suspension stood revoked automatically as per Clause 52.1.3. Hence, the question of treating petitioner still under suspension does not arise.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.