A Case Of MLA’s Ego Being Hurt: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Bank’s CEO

Tulip Kanth

2 Aug 2025 10:45 AM IST

The Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering a Petition challenging the CEO's suspension.

While setting aside the order of suspension passed against the Chief Executive Officer of the Central Cooperative Bank of District Sidhi, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that it was a case of the MLA’s ego getting hurt by the refusal of the Officer to accept her demand for cancellation of the transfer of a Clerk.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering a Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of suspension, mentioning therein that the petitioner had misbehaved and used unparliamentary language against a lady member of the Legislative Assembly and also against the In-charge Minister of the District and Minister of Cooperatives.

The Single Bench of Justice Vivek Jain stated, “However, in the present case it is duly indicated from the facts available on record that it was the case of undue pressure being exerted and not a case of general public grievance of the constituency being brought to the notice of the bank management. It is in fact a case of the MLA feeling ego hurt by refusal of the petitioner to accept her demand of cancellation of transfer of Clerk and this led to the entire unpleasant institution.”

Advocate Anil Lala represented the Petitioner, while Advocate General Prashant Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was the petitioner’s case that he was the Chief Executive Officer of the Central Cooperative Bank of District Sidhi, and as per the service rules of the Bank, he was competent to transfer any of the employees of the bank. He transferred a Clerk, from Gandhi Gram Branch to Sidhi Branch of the Bank. The lady MLA, on the same day, called up the petitioner on the phone immediately after the transfer order was issued and scolded him, saying why he had transferred a Branch Manager within her assembly area. As per the petitioner, the MLA insisted upon the petitioner and pressurized him to cancel the said transfer order.

The petitioner was placed under suspension for allegedly using unparliamentary language against the said MLA, as well as the In-charge Minister of the District and the Cooperative Minister of the State. The petition thus came to be filed on the ground that the impugned suspension order was actuated by malice in law and passed only to satisfy the ego of the local MLA of the district and nothing else.

Reasoning

Referring to the provisions of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the Bench noted that once suspension had been demanded by three MLAs and proposal forwarded by the Incharge Minister of the District to the Cooperative Minister of the State and on the note-sheet, the Cooperative Minister had forwarded the proposal of suspension to the Additional Chief Secretary and then the said proposal was forwarded to the Managing Director of the Bank, it could not be said that the Joint Registrar by exercising powers under Section 55(2) would not have been influenced by the fact that the decision to suspend the petitioner had been taken by none else than the Cooperative Minister of the State. Thus, the remedy under Section 55(2) to approach the Joint Registrar could not be termed as an efficacious remedy.

The Bench found that the note sheet initiated by the Incharge Minister of the District on the same date did not mention the indecent language used by the petitioner. As per the Bench, the language quoted in the note sheet did not amount to any indecency. “ The MLA in any of the letters and communications does not speak anything about the problems of the Bank or the employee who had been transferred, but only talks about her ego being hurt”, it noted.

The Court also mentioned that undue pressure was being exerted in fact by the MLA and the MLA was not espousing the cause of the public or the constituency in general, but was projecting the cause of a particular person of the constituency. Even in none of the complaints or note-sheets, anything had been mentioned about why the transfer of that Clerk had to be cancelled in the public interest. The MLA only complained about her ego being hurt and the petitioner using indecent language to her.

Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench held that the order suspending the petitioner was an order passed in exercise of excessive powers and actuated by bias and at the behest of MLA. The Bench concluded the matter by ordering that the petitioner be reinstated forthwith with all benefits for the suspension period.

Cause Title: Rajesh Raikwar v. State of M P. (Case No.: WP-20531-2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Anil Lala

Respondent: Advocate General Prashant Singh, Advocate Kapil Duggal

Click here to read/download Order

Related Tags :

Tulip Kanth

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.