Lalit Purohit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30909
1 WP-45285-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
nd
ON THE 2 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 45285 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020434572026
LALIT PUROHIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Palash Purohit - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms Pranjali Yajurvedi - Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order
dated 28.09.2026, whereby he has been placed under suspension pursuant to
his arrest and for remaining in custody for 48 hours.
02. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Class -IV
Permanent Employee (Chatur shreni sthayi karmchari) in the Municipal
Corporation, Indore. Against the petitioner offence was registered at Crime
No.370/2026 at M.G. Road, Police Station, Indore, under Section 108 of
BNS, 2023. The petitioner was arrested and remained in custody for two
days, he was granted bail by 26th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in B.A.
No.2958/2026 on 06.08.2026. After release on bail, the petitioner submitted
an application on 07.08.2026 thereby the petitioner himself informed about
his arrest and release. Pursuant to this communication by the petitioner, an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
JAGADEESAN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:30:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30909
2 WP-45285-2026
order was passed against him on 28.09.2026, whereby he has been placed

under suspension due to his arrest.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the petitioner
who, bonafidely, had given information about his arrest to the authorities.
The dispute for which the petitioner was arrested is in no way related to his
duties. He submits that in fact, there was a dispute between the petitioner
and his daughter, therefore, his daughter lodged FIR against the petitioner, he
was arrested, however, the bail was granted to the petitioner by competent
Court. Counsel points out that the department though suspended the
petitioner, however, now he is under suspension for about one month, when
there is complete absence of any necessity to continue the petitioner under
suspension. Learned counsel placed reliance of order passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India
reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, he thus submits that the authority deserves to
be directed to review the order of suspension and reinstate the petitioner back
in service.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
03. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra)
has held in paras 11,12 and 21 as under:-
" 11. Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is
essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short
duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on
sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would render
it punitive in nature. Departmental/disciplinary proceedings invariably
commence with delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the
drawing up of the memorandum of charges, and eventually culminate after
even longer delay.
12. Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have
regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. The
suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
JAGADEESAN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:30:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30909
3 WP-45285-2026
and the derision of his Department, has to endure this excruciation even before
he is formally charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or offence. His
torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an
inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is,
to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an
accompaniment to retirement. Indubitably, the sophist will nimbly counter that
our Constitution does not explicitly guarantee either the right to a speedy trial
even to the incarcerated, or assume the presumption of innocence to the
accused. But we must remember that both these factors are legal ground
norms, are inextricable tenets of Common Law Jurisprudence, antedating even
the Magna Carta of 1215, which assures that - "We will sell to no man, we will
not deny or defer to any man either justice or right." In similar vein the Sixth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that
in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial."
.....
....
...
...
21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not
extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of
Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the
Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be
passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the
Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any
of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal
contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the
investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from
contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his
having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the
universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy
trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution.
We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash
proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration.
However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been
discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of
justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that
pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in
abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."

04. Considering that present is the case where the petitioner was placed
under suspension only for the reason of his arrest on account of a dispute
between him and his daughter, the respondents are required to reconsider
whether there is necessity to continue the petitioner under suspension,
particularly, when it is the petitioner who himself has informed about dispute
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
JAGADEESAN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:30:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30909
4 WP-45285-2026
to the Municipal Corporation.

05. In view of the aforesaid the present petition is disposed of with
the following directions:-
(i) The petitioner may submit a detailed representation before the
respondent no.3 within a period of one week from today.
(ii) The respondent no.3 shall advert to the representation of the
petitioner and after assigning reasons, pass order either to withdraw the
suspension or to continue the same for the reasons to be assigned in the light
of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar
Choudary (Supra) within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of
submission of representation.
05. With the aforesaid present petition stands disposed of.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
sumathi

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
JAGADEESAN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:30:53