Date of judgement:
14.12.2022
Bench:
Honourable Justice Subodh Abhyankar
Parties:
Petitioner – Rajesh Pawaiya
Respondent – State of Madhya Pradesh
SUBJECT
In this case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while allowing the writ petition, held that the respondents are obliged to file a charge sheet before passing an order for the extension of the suspension period. Moreover, the respondents must decide the representation of the petitioner within a reasonable time.
FACTS
- In the present case, the petitioner had been suspended from service on 08.09.2020.
- He requested for the revocation of the suspension order
- However, even after repeated requests, his representation was not considered by the respondents.
- Subsequently, he filed an appeal before the High Court.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the extension of the suspension period without filing the charge sheet amount to a violation of the rights of the petitioners?
JUDGMENT ANALYSIS
- The petitioner relied on the case of Balmukund Gaud v. State of M.P. and contended that his representation should have been decided by the respondents in accordance with the law.
- This prayer of the petitioners was not opposed by the respondents.
- The High Court referred to the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary and another, (2015) 7 SCC 291 where the Apex Court had held that an extension order cannot be extended beyond three months if no charge sheet or memorandum of charge sheet is served within this period.
- If the charge sheet is filed, then a reasoned order is mandatory for the extension of the suspension period.
Conclusion
The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the concerned authority. The Court also directed the authority to decide the representation within a period of 4 weeks.
It is pertinent to note that the serving of a charge sheet is essential for the extension of the suspension period. In the absence of the charge sheet, the petitioner might not be appropriately able to defend himself.
Moreover, the Courts must try to ensure the speedy conclusion of departmental inquiries. If the inquiries continue indefinitely, then it violates the rights of the suspended employee and also affects the efficiency of the concerned department to which the employee belongs.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
