Suspension representation must be decided by a speaking order in light of *Ajay Kumar Chaudhary*.

The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 5 May 2025 and sought quashing of that order along with reinstatement in service.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel requested permission to submit a fresh representation before the competent authority, with a direction that the representation be decided within a stipulated period.

The State did not oppose this limited and innocuous request.

The petition concerned the petitioner’s suspension and was to be considered in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Ajay Kumar Chaudhary v. Union of India*, (2015) 7 SCC 291, and the Madhya Pradesh General Administration Department circulars dated 28 January 2013 and 9 April 2019 concerning review of prolonged suspension.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to quashing of the order dated 5 May 2025 and reinstatement in service?

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority for reconsideration of his suspension in accordance with applicable law and Government circulars?

Whether the competent authority was required to consider the representation by applying the principles in *Ajay Kumar Chaudhary* and the GAD circulars dated 28 January 2013 and 9 April 2019?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It relied on *Ajay Kumar Chaudhary v. Union of India*, (2015) 7 SCC 291, which holds that a suspension order ordinarily should not continue beyond three months if the memorandum of charges or chargesheet is not served within that period; where the chargesheet is served, continuation of suspension requires a reasoned order.

The Court also directed consideration of the petitioner’s case in light of the Madhya Pradesh GAD circulars dated 28 January 2013 and 9 April 2019, which provide for periodic review of suspension cases, particularly suspensions continuing for more than one year, through committees constituted at the appropriate administrative level.

The authority was required to pass a speaking and reasoned order.

The Court did not adjudicate the legality of the order dated 5 May 2025 or determine the petitioner’s entitlement to reinstatement on merits.

Since the petitioner confined his request to permission to file a fresh representation and the State did not oppose that request, the Court considered it appropriate to require reconsideration by the competent authority rather than examine the merits in writ proceedings at that stage.

The competent authority was directed to assess the representation under the safeguards against prolonged suspension stated in *Ajay Kumar Chaudhary* and under the review mechanism prescribed by the GAD circulars dated 28 January 2013 and 9 April 2019.

The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh and detailed representation, accompanied by relevant documents, before the competent authority within fifteen days from the date of the order.

The competent authority was directed to consider and decide the representation by a speaking and reasoned order, keeping in view *Ajay Kumar Chaudhary* and the GAD circulars dated 28 January 2013 and 9 April 2019.

No direct order of quashing, reinstatement, or other substantive relief was granted.