Bhanu Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30061
1 WA-3811-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
th
ON THE 26 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 3811 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020420042026
BHANU PRATAP SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Phadke - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Amit Bhatia - Government Advocate for the respondents State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai
The present intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth
Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. The appeal challenges the order dated
08.10.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 41783 of
2026. By the said order, the learned Single Judge directed the issuance of
notice to the respondents but did not grant interim protection against the
suspension order dated 27.09.2026.
2. The appellant was initially appointed in government service on
04.08.1998 as a Labour Officer. He is presently working as the Assistant
Labour Commissioner at Indore, which is a Class-I post. Before his posting
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 28-10-2026
15:07:39

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30061
2 WA-3811-2026
at Indore, the appellant was posted at Singrauli and held the additional charge

of the Bhopal Division until 15.06.2026. On 16.06.2026, a transfer order was
issued, posting the appellant to Indore.
3. The record shows that one Shri Navneet Kumar Pandey, a Labour
Inspector at Singrauli, filed W.P. No. 19171 of 2026 challenging his
termination. On 19.06.2026, the High Court stayed the termination order of
Shri Pandey. After these events, the respondent authorities issued the
impugned suspension order dated 27.09.2026 against the appellant. By this
order, the appellant was suspended and his headquarters were changed from
Indore to Bhopal.
4. The suspension order alleges that the appellant created hurdles in
the joining of Shri Navneet Kumar Pandey after the High Court granted the
stay. It is further alleged that the appellant pressurized Shri Pandey to
withdraw his writ petition. Aggrieved by this suspension order, the appellant
filed W.P. No. 41783 of 2026 before the learned Single Judge.
5. In the writ petition, the appellant challenged the suspension order
on the ground that it was based on wrong facts. He stated that he had already
been transferred to Indore before the stay order was passed and had no
control over the Singrauli office. He also pleaded that the mandatory prior
approval of the concerned Minister was not taken. The appellant prayed for
an interim stay of the suspension order. On 08.10.2026, the learned Single
Judge heard the matter, issued notice to the respondents, and directed
payment of process fee. However, no interim stay was granted.
6. The appellant has raised several grounds in this appeal. The main
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 28-10-2026
15:07:39

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30061
3 WA-3811-2026
ground is that the suspension order lacks the required approval of the

concerned Minister, making it without jurisdiction. It is also stated that the
allegations are completely against the record because the appellant was
transferred on 16.06.2026, before the stay order was passed on 19.06.2026.
The appellant claims that continuing the suspension causes serious prejudice
to his service and reputation, and therefore, the learned Single Judge should
have granted interim relief.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suspension
order is factually baseless and legally bad. It is argued that Shri Pandey
himself stated in another writ petition that the appellant merely conveyed
messages of superior officers and did not pressurized him. Learned counsel
further submits that since the appellant is now posted at Indore, he cannot
tamper with records or witnesses at Singrauli. Therefore, the refusal to grant
an interim stay by the learned Single Judge causes grave injustice.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes
the appeal. It is submitted that an order of suspension is not a punishment.
The allegations against the appellant involve interference with Court orders
and pressurizing an employee, which are serious in nature. Learned counsel
argues that the learned Single Judge has rightly issued notice to call for a
reply from the State before deciding the question of interim relief. It is stated
that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
10. The scope of interference by a Division Bench against a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 28-10-2026
15:07:39

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30061
4 WA-3811-2026
discretionary order passed by a learned Single Judge at the interim stage is

very limited. An appellate Court will generally not interfere unless the order
passed by the learned Single Judge is completely without jurisdiction,
arbitrary, or contrary to settled law.
11. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has not rejected the
writ petition. The Court has only directed the issuance of notice to the
respondents to file their reply. An order of suspension is generally not stayed
on the very first day of hearing, without giving the State an opportunity to
present the official records and file a proper reply.
12. The appellant has raised the issue of missing approval from the
concerned Minister and has pointed out dates regarding his transfer. These
are questions of fact and official procedure that the State must clarify in its
reply before the writ Court. The argument that the appellant had no control
over the Singrauli office after 16.06.2026 is a defense that can be examined
only after the State places the relevant documents on record.
13. We find that the learned Single Judge has adopted the correct
legal approach by issuing notice to hear the other side before deciding on the
interim relief. There is no jurisdictional error or legal defect in the approach
taken by the learned Single Judge. The appellant will have full opportunity to
press for interim relief or final disposal once the respondents enter an
appearance and file their response in the writ petition.
14. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, we are of
the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to demonstrate any error
warranting interference. The learned Single Judge exercised his discretion
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 28-10-2026
15:07:39

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30061
5 WA-3811-2026
properly. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order dated

08.10.2026.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, no ground is made out for
interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The present
Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
JUDGE
rashmi

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 28-10-2026
15:07:39