01Facts
The appellant, an Assistant Labour Commissioner, was transferred from Singrauli to Indore by order dated 16 June 2026. After the High Court stayed the termination of Labour Inspector Navneet Kumar Pandey on 19 June 2026, the State suspended the appellant on 27 September 2026, alleging that he obstructed Pandey’s joining and pressured him to withdraw his writ petition.
¶ 2–5The appellant challenged the suspension, asserting that he had already been transferred before the stay order and that the required ministerial approval had not been obtained. The Single Judge issued notice but declined to grant interim protection. The appellant appealed against that interlocutory order.
¶ 2–502Issues
i.1. Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the Single Judge’s discretionary decision not to grant interim protection against the suspension order
¶ 10–11ii.2. Whether the appellant’s claims regarding lack of ministerial approval and his transfer from Singrauli warranted interim relief before the State had filed its response
¶ 6, 12–1303Law Applied
The appeal was brought under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.
¶ 1The Court applied the principle that a Division Bench has a limited scope to interfere with a Single Judge’s discretionary interlocutory order; interference is generally unwarranted unless the order is wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary, or contrary to settled law.
¶ 10It also observed that a suspension order is generally not stayed at the first hearing without giving the State an opportunity to place the relevant records and its response before the writ court.
¶ 11Provisions in the judgment · 1
M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 Section 2
04Reasoning
The Single Judge had not rejected the writ petition or finally determined the legality of the suspension; the order merely directed notice to the State.
¶ 11The appellant’s assertions about ministerial approval and the timing and effect of his transfer involved factual and procedural matters that required clarification from the State’s records.
¶ 12In the absence of a demonstrated jurisdictional error or other legal defect, the Division Bench found no basis to disturb the Single Judge’s decision to hear the State before deciding interim relief.
¶ 13–1405Holding
The Division Bench held that the appellant had not established an error warranting appellate interference with the refusal of interim protection.
¶ 14–15The writ appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs; the appellant remained at liberty to press for interim relief or final disposal before the writ court after the respondents filed their response.
¶ 13, 15Original Court PDF
Bhanu Pratap SinghvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
