MP High Court Stays Teacher's Suspension Allegedly Over LPG Crisis Video, Says Order Passed Without Application Of Mind

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has stayed the suspension of a Government Primary School Teacher allegedly for posting a Facebook video discussing the LPG gas shortage and has asked the District Education Officer (DEO/respondent no 3) to consider the issue afresh, noting that the order was passed in haste and allegedly under the dictates of an MLA from the constituency.

The bench of Justice Ashish Shroti observed; 

"Thus, the impugned order is found to have been passed in haste, allegedly under the dictates of respondent no.4, and in a routine manner. Therefore, respondent no.3 is required to reconsider the matter by applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case". 

The petitioner, a Government Primary Teacher, challenged the DEO order by which he was placed under suspension. The suspension order was passed based on the allegation that on March 13, 2026, the petitioner posted an objectionable video with the intent to cause disturbance in society, and thus damaged the image of the department. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the video posted on Facebook did not contain any objectionable material. The video, it was argued, merely talked about the shortage of LPG gas prevailing in the society due to the Israel-Iran War. 

The petitioner further argued that the entire action was taken at the dictates of respondent no 4, who was an MLA from the constituency. After the video was posted, the respondent no 4 wrote a letter to the DEO, and immediately following his directions, the impugned order of suspension was passed. 

The counsel for the State argued that the petitioner was only placed under suspension, which does not amount to punishment, and therefore, no cause of action arises for filing the present petition. 

The bench noted that the purpose of placing a government servant under suspension is to prevent any mischief and to ensure that the proceedings are conducted unhindered. The bench held, 

"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 bench further observed that the competent authority is required to form an opinion assessing whether the allegations levelled against the delinquent warrant a major penalty or removal from service. 

The bench further emphasized that an employee should not be placed under suspension in a routine manner. The bench drew a distinction between the existence of power to suspend an employee and the manner in which such a power is exercised. The bench held, 

"It is thus 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 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". 

The court also noted that the respondent no 4, the MLA, wrote a letter to the DEO alleging that the petitioner had mimicked a popular political leader.

Additionally, the court observed that the DEO was required to reconsider the manner by applying his mind to the facts, noting that the impugned order did not contemplate any inquiry. 

Thus, the bench held that the impugned order was passed in haste, allegedly under the dictates of respondent no 4, the MLA. Therefore, the District Education Officer is required to reconsider the matter. Accordingly, the bench disposed of the petition. 

Case Title: Saket Kumar Purohit v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP-10356-2026]

For Petitioner: Advocate Krishna Kartikey Sharma

For State: Advocate Brij Mohan Patel

Click here to read/download the Order