In Support Of His Contention, Petitioner's Counsel Has Placed Reliance Onthe Judgment Of The Supreme Court In The Case Of Commissioner Of Incometax, Shimla v. Greenworld Corporation, Parwanoo Reported In(2009) 7 Scc 69 And A Reading From Said Judgment, It Is Submitted That Sincethe Disciplinary Authority Placing A Per

The High Court Of Madhya PradeshWP No. 21856 of 2021 (VISHAL KUMAR CHIDARVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS) Jabalpur, Dated : [08][-][11][-][2021] Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for therespondent/State. This writ petition is filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated24.9.2021 and also the order dated 29.9.2021 on the ground that petitionerhas been placed under suspension vide order dated 29.9.2021 passed by theCommandant of 7th Battalion, SAF, Bhopal on the dictates of the DirectorGeneral of Police, who had directed him to place the petitioner undersuspension vide order dated 24.9.2021 on registration of criminal case for theoffences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 and Section 3Gha(1,2)/4 of the Madhya Pradesh RecognizedExamination Act, 1937 and also under Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) ofPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in which case charge sheet was filed on25.7.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the provisobelow Rule 9(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification,Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter shall be referred to as"MPCSCCA Rules, 1966") and submitted that suspension is warranted whenChallan for a criminal offence involving corruption or other moral turpitudeafter sanction of prosecution by the Government against him. It is alsosubmitted that there is no act of moral turpitude involved and, therefore, therewas no need for the petitioner to have been placed under suspension. In support of his contention, petitioner's counsel has placed reliance onthe judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of IncomeTax, Shimla versus Greenworld Corporation, Parwanoo reported in(2009) 7 SCC 69 and a reading from said judgment, it is submitted that sincethe disciplinary authority placing a person under suspension is exercising a quasi judicial function, therefore, that authority has to pass an order and thatorder cannot be coloured or dictated by any other authority. Similarly,reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of JointAction Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India (ALPAI) &Others versus Director General of Civil Aviation & Others reported in(2011) 5 SCC 435 wherein it is held that if any decision is taken by astatutory authority at the behest or on suggestion of a person, who has nostatutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal. Thus, placingreliance on the aforesaid judgments, it is submitted by learned counsel for thepetitioner that since the order of suspension has been passed at the behestof Director General of Police, the order is vitiated and deserves to be setaside. Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench Order of this Court passedon 26.10.2021 in Writ Petition No.09371/2019 (Alok Gupta versus Stateof Madhya Pradesh) wherein respondents have been directed to not toterminate the services of petitioner(s) till next date (if not already terminated).Placing reliance on this order of the Division Bench, it is submitted by learnedcounsel for the petitioner that similar matters involving similar issues arealready attracting attention of Division Bench, therefore, the impugned orderof suspension may be set aside. Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for therespondent/State in his turn submits that there is a provision of appeal againstthe order of suspension. It is also submitted that as per Annexure P/5 issuedby the Directorate of Public Instructions and by the Chairman of SheeghraLekhan Mudralekhan Pariksha Parishad, it is evident that manipulations inanswer books of 2947 examinees were found against whom criminal caseshave been registered after investigation by the Special Task force constitutedfor the said purpose. It is further submitted that petitioner is one of them andthe act of causing manipulations in the examination system by manipulatingthe answer books through various mechanism as have been briefly noted inAnnexure P/5, it cannot be said that petitioner is not guilty of an act involving After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through therecord, it is evident that a charge sheet has been filed against the petitionerunder various provisions of law enumerated above. Rule 9(1) of theMPCS(CCA) Rules, 1966 provides that the appointing authority or anyauthority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any otherauthority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or specialorder may place a Government servant under suspension. Clause (b) of Rule9(1) of the MPCS(CCA) Rules, 1966 provides for suspension where a casein respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial.Proviso below Rule 9(1)(b) of the MPCS(CCA) Rules, 1966 provides forcompulsorily placing the Goverment servant under suspension when Challanfor a cirminal offence involving corruption or other moral turpitude is filed. Thus, first argument put forward by Shri K.C.Ghildiyal that theimpugned order has been passed at the dictates of Director General of Policeis not made out inasmuch as the Director General of Police being a statutoryauthority to the appointing authority/disciplinary authority is empowered toissue directions and even empowered to pass an order of suspension directlyin terms of the provisions contained in Rule 9 of the MPCS(CCA) Rules,1966. Secondly, it is evident from the impugned order dated 24.9.2021 thatthe Commandant was only informed that since a charge sheet had been filedunder the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as underother provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Madhya PradeshRecognized Examination Act, 1937, therefore, the provisions contained inRule 9(1) of the MPCSCCA Rules, 1966 are to be invoked and information isto be sent. It is evident from the language used in Rule 9(1)(b) and proviso belowit of the MPCS(CCA) Rules, 1966 that it is mandatory for the authorities toplace a Government servant under suspension against whom a criminal caseis either being investigated or filed, therefore, reliance placed by the petitioner Signature Not VerifiedSAN on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the csae of Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla versus Greenworld Corporation, Parwanoo(supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present caseinasmuch as once it is mandatory to place a Government servant undersuspension upon filing of a charge sheet then there is no scope for exercise ofany discretion, which could have been said to have been violated by issuanceof reminder by the Director General of Police as contained in Annexure P/9dated 24.9.2021. Similarly, the law laid down in the case of Joint Action Committee of Signature Not VerifiedSAN on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the csae of Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla versus Greenworld Corporation, Parwanoo(supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present caseinasmuch as once it is mandatory to place a Government servant undersuspension upon filing of a charge sheet then there is no scope for exercise ofany discretion, which could have been said to have been violated by issuanceof reminder by the Director General of Police as contained in Annexure P/9dated 24.9.2021. Similarly, the law laid down in the case of Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India (ALPAI) & Others versus DirectorGeneral of Civil Aviation & Others (supra) is that the statutory authoritycannot take a decision at the behest or on suggestion of a person, who has nostatutory role to play and if action is taken at the behest of a person, who hasno statutory role to play then the same would be patently illegal but in thepresent case, it cannot be said that the Director General of Police, who hadissued communication dated 24.9.2021, will come within the definition of aperson, who has no statutory role to play. Infact a plain and simple reading ofRule 9 of the MPCS(CCA) Rules, 1966 reveals that the Director General ofPolice, being a statutory authority to the appointing authority/disciplinaryauthority, has a definite statutory role in the matter, therefore, even the law laiddown in the case of Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots'Association of India (ALPAI) & Others versus Director General ofCivil Aviation & Others (supra) will not be applicable to the facts andcircumstances of the present case. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others versusUdai Narain reported in (1998) 5 SCC 535 has held that the expression"investigation, inquiry or trial" would include the stage of filing of chargesheet in the Court and would authorize imposing suspension at that stagesince delinquent cannot be considered to be any better off after the chargesheet had been filed than his position during investigation of the case itself Signature Not VerifiedSAN 5 WP-21856-2021 and since it is mandatory to place a Government servant under suspension interms of proviso below Rule 9(1)(b) of the MPCS(CCA) Rules, 1966 uponfiling of a Challan for a criminal offence involving corruption or other moralturpitude, the impugned order cannot be said to have been passed withoutauthority and communication dated 24.9.2021 is just a reminder by onestatutory authority to another to act in accordance with law and nothing muchcan be read into it calling for interference into the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. (VIVEK AGARWAL)JUDGE amit