Order Passed To Save Education Dept's Face: MP High Court Quashes College Principal's Suspension For No Direct Role In Irregular Evaluation

Justice Sanjay Dwivedi in his order observed, “The very object for placing an employee under suspension is to complete the proceeding unhindered and to keep the said employee away from the mischief range. From the available record, it is clear that the petitioner was not directly involved in the alleged irregularity and under such circumstances, if he is kept in service, then also no question of committing any mischief by him would arise. More so, while passing the order, the authority did not take note of the enquiry report which otherwise reveals that the petitioner was not directly involved in the alleged irregularity. Under such circumstances, it can be inferred that the impugned order placing the petitioner under suspension has been passed just to save the face of department among the public and to show that for the alleged irregularity, appropriate action has been taken. However, satisfaction of others is not the very object for placing an employee under suspension whereas it should be done for concluding the enquiry in a fair manner.”

A petition was filed aggrieved by an order passed by respondent No. 2/Secretary, Higher Education Department, Bhopal by which the petitioner was placed under suspension.

The petitioner was an in-charge Principal at Government Shaheed Bhagat Singh P.G. College, Pipariya. During the course of evaluation of answer sheets, certain irregularities were noticed and made viral on social media. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted statements of various persons were recorded and a report was submitted by the Enquiry Committee. The Enquiry Committee held the petitioner and a Professor of Political Science guilty for the alleged irregularity. In pursuance of the said report, the department exercising the power under Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 passed the suspension order.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the order had been passed in a very mechanical manner without application of mind. It was further contended that without there being any fault on the part of the petitioner and his direct involvement in the alleged irregularity, he was suspended which was unjustified.

On the contrary, the Government Advocate opposed the submissions and raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition stating that since the impugned order was appealable, therefore, the petitioner should have availed the remedy of appeal as provided under Rule 23 of the Rules, 1966.

The Court considered whether the order of suspension passed by the Higher Education Department was appropriate or not. The Court noted that the petitioner had no direct connection with the alleged irregularity.

“Though, the petitioner was said to be a Nodal Officer, but without there being any prior intimation, if any irregularity has been committed, then it cannot be made a reason to hold him responsible for the said irregularity. At the most, the officer who committed the irregularity can be punished for the same and even subjected to disciplinary proceeding, but in any manner, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged irregularity and under such circumstances, if any order is passed keeping him under suspension, then it can be presumed that the authority, without applying its mind, has exercised the power of suspension.”, the Court said.

The Court opined that the authority was trying to keep the petitioner out of employment. Taking in account the enquiry report according to which the petitioner was not directly involved in the alleged irregularity, the Court said that the action of the authority placing the petitioner under suspension was unjust and inappropriate.

The Court opined that the object for placing an employee under suspension is not to ensure 'satisfaction of others' but to conclude the enquiry in a fair manner.

Thus, exercising the power of judicial review, the Court set aside the petitioner's suspension.

The petition was hence, allowed.

Case Title: Dr. Rakesh Kumar Verma Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No.13206 Of 2025

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Praveen Dubey

Counsel for Respondent/State: Government Advocate Girish Kekre