The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the suspension of an Assistant Sub-Inspector at the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti in Pandhana, District Khandwa. The suspension was ordered by the Managing Director of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipanan (Mandi) Board. The Court upheld the action, ruling that the absence of a specific officer should not obstruct the functioning of the entire Mandi Board.

The suspension was issued on January 28, 2025, following the filing of a chargesheet against the petitioner, Shankar Singh Dawar, under Sections 418, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Read Also:- MP High Court: Assaulting Wife for Resisting Unnatural Sex Qualifies as Cruelty Under IPC Section 498A

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Archana Kher, argued that the suspension order was unlawful as it was not passed by his appointing authority, the Additional Director, but by the Managing Director, who, according to the petitioner, is only the Appellate Authority. The petitioner urged the Court to revoke the suspension and reinstate him in service.

Instead of filing a detailed reply, the Managing Director submitted an application seeking dismissal of the petition, asserting that the suspension order had been passed by a competent authority and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 59(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972.

Responding to the petition, counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, Advocate Abhinav Dhanodkar, submitted that due to the transfer of the Additional Director, the Managing Director had lawfully exercised powers under Section 42-D(4) of the 1972 Act, which vests superintendence and control over all officers and employees of the Board in the Managing Director.

Read Also:-Madras High Court: Same-Sex Couples Can Form a Family Even Without Legal Marriage

The Court also referred to Rule 35 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Mandi Board Seva Viniyam, 1998. Though the rule was amended in 2002 to replace the term “Managing Director” with “Appointing Officer/Disciplinary Authority,” the respondents presented the transfer order of the Additional Director, who had been posted as Collector of District Raisen. This substantiated the Managing Director’s action under the said section.

“It is apparent that as per sub-section (4) of Section 42-D of the Act of 1972, the powers of superintendence and control have been vested in the Managing Director, over all the officers and employees of the Board, Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed.

“In such circumstances, this Court is also of the considered opinion that when a particular officer is not available to discharge his duties, such duties can certainly be looked after by the Managing Director himself in his discretion, because absence of an officer cannot hamper the working of the entire Mandi Board,” the judge further stated.

The Court also took note of the Division Bench’s ruling in Virendra Kumar Singh v. State of M.P. where it was held that the Managing Director has the authority to transfer and supervise officers under the same statutory provision.

While acknowledging the precedents cited by the petitioner, the Court clarified that they were distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the present case.

Read Also:-Madras High Court Upholds KYC and Night-Time Ban for Online Real Money Games

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed for lacking merit.

However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to assail the order of suspension before the State Government as provided under Section 59 of the Act of 1972, the Court added in conclusion.

Case Title: Shankar Singh Dawar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Writ Petition No.: 5737 of 2025

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Archana Kher

Counsel for Respondents No. 2 and 3: Advocate Abhinav Dhanodkar