Smt. Parwati Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30441
1 WP-45023-2026
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. 45023 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020431862026
SMT. PARWATI BAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manuraj Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Uddhav Raj Singh Rathore - Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of
Advocate General for State of M.P.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking following reliefs
:-
i) issue appropriate writ of Certiorari or any other writ, direction or
order quashing the impugned suspension order dt. 03.06.2021 (Annexure
P/1)
ii) issue appropriate writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or
order directing the respondent no.3 to reinstate the petitioner and allow her to
join her duties with all consequential benefits including back wages,
iii) allow this petition with costs or any other relief deemed fit may
kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 30-10-2026
10:20:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30441
2 WP-45023-2026
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is working on the post of

Cleaner in the respondent - department. On 11.8.2021 an FIR was registered
against the petitioner in P.S. Rajgarh for the offence under section 177, 186,
269, 304, 336, 369, 417,34 & 120-B of IPC, Sections 8 & 10 of the M.P.
Upcharyagriha Tatha Rujopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye (Registrikaran Tatha
Anugyapan) Adhiniyam, Section 4 of the Births and Deaths Act,1969,
Section 24 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Section 13 of the
Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Pursuant to registration of FIR, the petitioner
was placed under suspension on 3.6.2021. Since then the petitioner is
continuing under suspension. The case of the petitioner is that the
respondents have not reviewed the order of suspension although there is
specific instructions issued by the G.A.D. of the Government of Madhya
Pradesh vide 28.1.2013 for reviewing the cases of Government Servants who
are under suspension on account of registration of a criminal case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
submitted several representations for review of his order of suspension
submitted on 24.12.2024, 3.7.2025 and latest on 14.8.2026. However the
respondents have not passed any order on such representations of the
petitioner, hence this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prolonged
suspension itself is a punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of
India (2015) 7 SCC 291 has considered the effect of prolonged suspension
and has held that the suspension by its very nature is only a temporary
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 30-10-2026
10:20:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30441
3 WP-45023-2026
arrangement which should only be done for a short duration. He thus

submits that looking to the long period of suspension the authorities deserve
to be directed to reconsider the necessity for continuation of suspension of
the petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that looking to
nature of offence for which an FIR has been lodged against the petitioner he
has correctly been kept under suspension.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary
(supra) has held in Para 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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 30-10-2026
10:20:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30441
4 WP-45023-2026
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 Page 17 17 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."


8. It is thus clear that Hon'ble Apex Court has held that suspension
essentially initially is transitory or a temporary exercise and must perforce
be for a short duration. In the present case the petitioner is under suspension
since the year of 2021. In the considered view of this court prolonged
suspension is neither is in the interest of employee nor in the interest of
employer. Considering the same the present petition is disposed of with the
direction to respondent no.3 to review the order of suspension and after
considering whether the petitioner is required to be continued under
suspension or not an appropriate order be passed by assigning proper
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 30-10-2026
10:20:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30441
5 WP-45023-2026
reasons. The aforesaid exercise be completed within an outer limits of two

months from the date of communication of this order.
9. With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
bks

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 30-10-2026
10:20:48