Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/8858/2015 of AKBAR KHA Vs PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT on 31 December 2015
No.8858 of 2015 31/12/2015 Shri Ritesh Inani, learned counsel for the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Writ Petition No.8858 of 2015
31/12/2015
Shri Ritesh Inani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the respondents – State.
Heard.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of suspension dated 15.12.2015 whereby the petitioner who is working on the post of Gram Sachiv has been placed under suspension.
Counsel for the respondents – State has raised a preliminary objection about the availability of alternative remedy.
The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that an opportunity of hearing and an inquiry is required before placing him under suspension cannot be accepted because there is no such requirement for placing a person under suspension.
The issue raised by the petitioner that the order of suspension has been passed by the authority lower than the appointing authority also cannot be accepted in view of the Proviso to Rule-4 of the Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 under which the petitioner has been placed under suspension.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Committee of Management and Another Vs. Vice Chancellor and Others reported in AIR-2009 2 SCC-630, where in it has been held that the availability of alternative remedy is not a bar if the order is passed by the authority without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice, but the order impugned in the present case cannot be faulted in any of these grounds.
Since the petitioner is having alternative, efficacious remedy of appeal under Rule 15 of Rules 1999, therefore, no good ground is made out to entertain the writ petition directly. Hence the writ petition is disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal. If such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner, the same will be considered and decided by the appellate authority as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the order. If any application for interim relief is filed before the appellate authority, the same will also be decided expeditiously.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Vacation Judge
Arun/-