Hyjinus Kerketta vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

W. A. No. 231/16

10/05/16

Shri N. S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Piyush Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.

After making submissions for sometime, Shri Ruprah made an alternative prayer to say that as the power delegated to the Divisional Commissioner to exercise the powers of the Disciplinary Authority is only with regard to imposing the punishment under Rule 10 Clause (i) to (iv) i.e. minor punishment and in view of the circulars issued by the State Govt. filed as Annexure R-J2 which contemplates a provision that normally, in cases, where proceedings are held for minor punishment, suspension should not be awarded. He is granted to bring all these facts to the notice of the Divisional Commissioner and seek revocation of suspension.

That apart, he submits that on facts also, suspension of the petitioner is not called for as it runs contrary to the circulars and directions issued by the State Govt. and certain law laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases.

In view of the aforesaid alternate submission made and keeping in view the legal question open, without entering into the controversy on merit, on the appellant's filing a detailed representation with regard to the averments made by Shri Ruprah as indicated hereinabove before the Disciplinary Authority namely respondent no. 2 within a period of 15 days from today, respondent no. 2 shall consider the representation of the petitioner and decide it by a speaking order within a period of 45 days thereof.

Till the decision is not taken by the respondent no. 2, the

interim protection granted to the petitioner with regard to his suspension by the Writ Court shall continue to remain in operation.

With the aforesaid, this appeal stands disposed of.

C. C. as per rules.

Judge Judge

(Rajendra Menon) (Anurag Shrivastava)

Vy/-