IN THE judgement of the case – Saket Kumar Purohit v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others, delivered on March 25, 2026, Justice Ashish Shroti has, at the v. Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, held that the existence of the power to suspend an employee, the manner in which such power is exercised, and the propriety of passing such an order are distinct aspects. Merely because the authority is competent to issue a suspension order does not place such order beyond the scope of judicial review. If it suffers from non-application of mind or is palpably arbitrary, it is liable to be interfered with.

 

In this case, the petitioner, a Primary Teacher, was aggrieved by the order passed on March 13, 2026, whereby he was placed under suspension. The petitioner has been Primary Teacher at Government Primary School in the District Shivpuri. He was placed under suspension, alleging that he posted an objectionable video with an intent to cause disturbance in society, thereby damaging the image of the department, in violation of Rule 3(1),(2),(3) of the MP Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. During the suspension period the petitioner was attached to the office of the Block Education Development Officer, Badarwas. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the video posted by him does not contain any objectionable material which could cause disturbance in society. In the video the petitioner has merely stated about the shortage of LPG gas prevailing in the society due to Israel-Iran war. It was also urged that the act of the petitioner does not, in any manner violate the Conduct Rules.

 

The petitioner’s counsel also submitted that the entire action was taken at the dictates of the v Respondent-4, who is an MLA from the Constituency. The Video was posted on March 12, 2026, at about 6 pm and the R-4 wrote a letter to the R-3 on March 13, 2026, and immediately, following the directions, the impugned order of suspension was passed. This clearly reflects that the R-3 did not apply his mind independently by considering the allegations made against the petitioner and, in a mechanical manner placed the petitioner under suspension. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that through the order of October 21, 2025, the Collector had given him additional charge of Rajya Anand Sansthan as Master Trainer, and he is working in that capacity by virtue of the said order. According to him, by passing the impugned order, the R-3 cannot override or supersede the order passed by the Collector. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner has been actively participating in social activities and is a dedicated teacher and he never intended to do something which may cause unrest in society.

 

Therefore, the counsel prayed for interference by the Court. On the other hand, the Govt. Advocate opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. He submitted that the petitioner has been placed under suspension, which does not amount to punishment and, therefore, no cause of action is there for this petition. He also submitted that the adjudication of a suspension would be beyond the purview of judicial review, when the issue of competence is not involved. He prayed for dismissal of the petition. In the opinion of the HC, it is noteworthy that the purpose of placing a Govt. servant under suspension is to keep him away from any possible mischief and to ensure that the proceedings are conducted unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent employee may not have custody or control over relevant records or misuse his position. The Government has issued instructions via the Circular of January 13, 2005, by way of guideline for keeping in mind by the authority, while passing the order of suspension.

 

Thus, the competent authority is required to form an opinion as to whether the allegations levelled against the delinquent are such which may warrant major penalty of dismissal or removal from service and/or the allegations are such which warrant delinquent to be kept away kept away from his work. It has been directed that the suspension should not be ordered in routine manner. The law regarding placing an employee under suspension has been considered from time to time by the Supreme Court as also by this HC. After referring to various Supreme Court judgements, this HC has considered the legal position in detail in the case of Smt. Nahid Jahan v. State of MP and others. The order was passed in the WP No. 14176/2017. It is evident that an employee cannot be placed under suspension in a routine manner, as part of a “Suspension syndrome”.

 

The existence of the power to suspend an employee, the manner in which such power is exercised, and the propriety of passing such an order are distinct aspects. Merely because the authority is competent to issue such a suspension order does not place such order beyond the scope of judicial review. If it suffers from non-application of mind or is palpably arbitrary, it is liable to be interfered with. In this case, it is seen that on March 12, 2026, at about the 6 pm, the alleged offending video was uploaded by the petitioner, on his Facebook account. On March 13, 2026, respondent-4 wrote a letter to Respondent- 3, seeking action against the petitioner, alleging that in the video, the petitioner had mimicked a popular political leader. On the very same day, the impugned order came to be passed. It is thus evident the respondent-3 did not consider justifiability or desirability of placing the petitioner under suspension. Also, the impugned order does not contemplate any inquiry. Further, the respondent-3 failed to consider the instructions in the Circular issued by the Govt. on January, 13, 2005.

 

Thus, the impugned order is found to have been passed in haste, allegedly, under the dictates of respondent-4 and in a routine manner. Therefore, respondent -3 is required to reconsider the matter by applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and by taking into account the Govt. Circular as well as the law laid down by the HC in the case of Smt Nahid Jahan. Accordingly, instead of keeping the matter pending, the HC remanded the case to the respondent-3 for reconsideration and fresh decision thereafter and the HC has also stayed the impugned order till passing of the fresh order.