Dr. Shobha Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30487
1 WP-43945-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
th
ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 43945 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020421842026
DR. SHOBHA PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Ms. Pranjali Yajurvedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order
dated 01.10.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Health Services whereby in
exercise of powers under Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 the petitioner has been placed under
suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has come before this Court
directly by not resorting to the remedy of appeal as available in terms of
Rule 23 of the aforesaid rules on two grounds. First the order has been
passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the
proceedings based on which the order of suspension has been passed and
second that the Commissioner, Health Services is not having jurisdiction to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 31-10-2026
12:29:49

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30487
2 WP-43945-2026
pass the order of suspension in view of the fact that the appointing authority

of the petitioner is the State Government and the Commissioner, Health
Services is not her appointing authority. As in view of Rule 9 the appointing
authority or the disciplinary authority which could have passed the order of
suspension or the authority authorized by the Government.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Whirlpool Corporation V/s.
Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others (1998) 8 SCC 1 particularly
on para 14 and 15 of the same and submits that in view of the law as laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court the present petition deserves to be
entertained by the Court even in view of the availability of alternate
remedy.
3. Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner on the question of
admission.
4. Considering that the petitioner has a clear statutory remedy of
appeal in terms of Rule 23 this Court is not inclined to entertain the present
petition as regards the reliance placed by the learned counsel on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation
(supra) there is no denial of the fact that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in
the said case that the availability of not entertaining the Writ Petition in view
of the availability of alternate remedy is only a self imposed restrained and it
has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in cases where there is breach
of principle of natural justice or the order is without jurisdiction the petition
can be entertained, however in the present case the order within under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 31-10-2026
12:29:49

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30487
3 WP-43945-2026
challenge is an order of suspension. It is settled position of law that before

passing an order of suspension no notice of any kind is required to be issued
and no opportunity of hearing is required to be given. The suspension by
itself is not a punishment but it is only a transitory leisure.
5. As regards the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Health Services
to place the petitioner under suspension it is to be noted that the State
Government vide Circular dated 22.04.2006 (Annexure R/1) has authorized
the Commissioner, Health Services to impose minor penalty upon the Class-I
officers of the department in terms of Rule 16 which provides procedure for
imposition of minor penalties. Considering the same the Commissioner
becomes the disciplinary authority of the petitioner for imposition of minor
penalty and in view of Rule 9 disciplinary authority can pass the order of
suspension. Considering the same this Court is of the view that the order is
not under jurisdiction. As such the present petition is dismissed, however
with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal in terms of Rule 23 of the M.P.
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 against the
order of suspension.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage requests for early
contention on the appeal as well as application for interim relief in the
appeal. Considering the request it is hereby directed that in case the
petitioner submits appeal as well as application for interim relief before the
appellate authority within a period of seven days from today then the
application for interim relief shall be decided within 10 days from the date
of submission and appeal itself be decided within four weeks from the date
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 31-10-2026
12:29:49

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30487
4 WP-43945-2026
of submission of appeal.

7. With the aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
ns

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 31-10-2026
12:29:49