7 min readNew DelhiMar 27, 2026 12:16 PM ISTThe case arose from a suspension order of a teacher after he uploaded a video on Facebook about LPG shortage. (Image generated using AI)LPG shortage news: Underlining the ‘suspension syndrome’ of those in power, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has stayed the suspension of a government school teacher who was penalised over a Facebook video referring to an LPG shortage, holding that disciplinary action cannot be initiated “mechanically” or under external pressure without proper application of mind.A bench of Justice Ashish Shroti was hearing a writ petition filed by a government teacher Saket Kumar Purohit, a primary school teacher posted in Shivpuri district challenging his suspension order dated March 13 issued after he posted the video about an alleged LPG shortage.“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,” the court said on March 25. The court found that the suspension order was passed on the same day as the complaint was filed about the video of LPG shortage. (Image enhanced using AI)Suspension order not beyond judicial reviewMerely 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 high court reiterated that while authorities do possess the power to suspend employees, such power must be exercised with due care and reasoning.The bench emphasised that suspension should ordinarily be resorted to only when serious allegations are involved, warranting major penalties, or the employee’s presence may interfere with the inquiry process.Routine or reflexive suspension, the court said, is impermissible.Also Read | ‘Liquor trade not fundamental right’: Madhya Pradesh High Court upholds suspension of firm’s multiple licencesThe existence of power is one thing and the exercise of such power is another.Merely because an authority is competent to pass an order of suspension, it cannot be said that his order is justifiable.Suspension is not a punishment but is only one forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him.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.It is important to examine if the allegations are such which may warrant delinquent to be kept away from his work.It has been directed that the suspension should not be ordered in routine manner.Suspension hasty, influencedIn the present case, on March 12, at around 6pm, the alleged offending video about LPG shortage was uploaded by the petitioner on his Facebook account.On March 13, a letter was written to the competent authority seeking action against the petitioner, alleging that in the video about LPG shortage the petitioner had mimicked a popular political leader.On the very same day, the suspension order was passed.It is thus evident that authority concerned did not consider the justifiability or desirability of placing the petitioner under suspension.Also, the suspension order does not contemplate any inquiry.Further, the authorities failed to consider the instructions issued by the government through circular dated January 13, 2025 which says that a government servant should be placed under suspension only when a major penalty is likely to be imposed.Also Read | Tribal status no ‘license’ for polygamy: Madhya Pradesh High Court denies woman’s succession claimAnother aspect to be considered by the authority concerned is as to whether the act alleged against the petitioner for putting up a video about LPG shortage would constituted misconduct within the Conduct Rules’.Examining the facts, the court found that the suspension order was passed on the same day as the complaint was filed about the video of LPG shortage.There was no indication of an independent assessment of the allegations.No inquiry appeared to have been contemplated.Government guidelines cautioning against unnecessary suspension were ignored.“This reflects non-application of mind,” the court noted, adding that the order appeared to have been passed “in haste” and “under dictates.”Suspension within hoursThe case arose from a suspension order dated March 13, issued a day after Purohit uploaded a video on Facebook about LPG shortage around 6 pm on March 12.In the video, he spoke about an alleged shortage of LPG cylinders, attributing it to global factors including the Israel-Iran conflict.According to the petition, an MLA from the constituency wrote to the authorities on March 13 seeking action against the teacher.Also Read | ‘Legally Immaterial’: Madhya Pradesh High Court rules husband can’t be booked for ‘unnatural’ sex with wifeOn the very same day, the suspension order was issued.The petitioner argued that this sequence clearly showed that the competent authority acted in haste and under political pressure, without independently examining whether the video amounted to misconduct.‘No objectionable content’: PetitionerAdvocate Krishna Kartikey Sharma, appearing for Purohit contended that the video about the LPG shortage contained no objectionable material capable of disturbing public order or damaging the department’s image.He further submitted that merely discussing a public issue such as LPG availability could not be construed as a violation of service conduct rules.The counsel also highlighted that the teacher had an otherwise clean record and was actively engaged in social and educational initiatives, including serving as a master trainer under the Rajya Anand Sansthan.State defends suspension as interim measureGovernment Advocate Brij Mohan Patel, opposing the plea, argued that suspension is not a punishment but an interim administrative measure.The GA maintained that courts should not ordinarily interfere in such matters unless there is a question of competence or illegality.However, the court was not persuaded by this argument.Guidelines on suspension ignoredThe court also referred to a state government circular dated January 13, 2005, which mandates that suspension should not be ordered routinely and should be reserved for cases involving serious misconduct likely to result in major penalties.Authorities are also required to record clear reasons before placing an employee under suspension.In the present case, the court found no evidence that these safeguards were followed.Relief granted, matter remittedWhile stopping short of quashing the suspension outright, the court stayed its operation and directed the competent authority to reconsider the matter afresh.“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,” the court said, directing a fresh decision after proper application of mind.The suspension will remain until such reconsideration is completed.Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd