Shajapur Collector and Excise Officer row intensifies:HC stays suspension, questions intent; complete inside story of administrative clash

The ongoing dispute between Collector Riju Bafna and District Excise Officer (DEO) Vinay Rangshahi in Shajapur district of Madhya Pradesh has become a subject of discussion across administrative and legal circles in the state. What began as an issue of alleged negligence has now escalated into a larger controversy involving alleged misuse of authority and actions taken in disregard of established procedures. The High Court, while questioning the Collector’s ‘intentions’, has stayed Rangshahi’s suspension. Why did tensions arise between two senior district officials? How did the matter reach the courts? And what does the High Court’s decision mean for the District Excise Officer? Here is a detailed account. Root of the dispute: Where it began The conflict dates back to September–October 2025. The lack of coordination between Shajapur Collector Riju Bafna and Excise Officer Vinay Rangshahi first came to light when the Collector ordered a deduction of five days’ salary from Rangshahi. It was alleged that Rangshahi had arrived late despite being summoned by the Collector. Following this incident, a series of complaints and notices were exchanged between the two officers. Rangshahi had assumed charge in August 2025, and from the following month, the Collector reportedly adopted a stricter stance towards him. Collector’s ‘Chargesheet’: key allegations In a notice issued on 13 February 2025, Collector Riju Bafna raised several concerns regarding Rangshahi’s conduct and performance. The principal allegations were as follows: 1. Absence from key events
Rangshahi was accused of being absent from major official events, including Madhya Pradesh Foundation Day (1 November), International Gita Day (1 December), the District Development Advisory Committee meeting (13 December), International Yoga Day (12 January), and Republic Day. 2. Negligence in official meetings
The Collector alleged that Rangshahi was frequently absent from the weekly Time Limit (TL) meetings held every Monday and the public hearings conducted on Tuesdays, thereby affecting departmental review and coordination. 3. Mobile phone inaccessibility
It was claimed that Rangshahi’s mobile phone was often switched off. Attempts were made to contact him through his stenographer, Arpit Jain, but without success. 4. Leaving headquarters without permission
Rangshahi was accused of remaining outside the district headquarters without authorisation and arriving hours late when summoned. 5. Inaction against illegal liquor activities
The notice stated that only two cases were registered between August 2025 and January 2026. It further alleged that no effective action was taken against irregular liquor sales on 2 October (Dry Day). 6. No inspection reports submitted
As per the inspection roster, no liquor shops were inspected and no reports were submitted between September and January. Rangshahi’s response: Point-by-point rebuttal On 16 February, Vinay Rangshahi submitted a detailed reply addressing each allegation, which later formed a key basis of arguments in the High Court. On event attendance
Rangshahi stated that official communication for several events, including Gita Diwas and Yoga Diwas, had not been received. On Republic Day, he claimed to have been on field duty monitoring Dry Day compliance, while also arranging 75 shields and 1,000 pens for official purposes. On public hearings
He maintained that he regularly attended public hearings. However, he noted that excise-related complaints typically require field verification and cannot be resolved instantly. He also pointed out that in some districts, excise officials are exempt from such hearings. On mobile accessibility
Rangshahi asserted that his mobile phone remains operational for departmental functions, including access to the e-excise portal and OTP-based systems. He attributed communication gaps to network issues in field areas and alleged that stenographer Arpit Jain had, at times, asked callers to contact the Collector directly. On enforcement action
He claimed that enforcement action was ongoing and that several files were pending at the Collector’s office for further decision. HC’s observations: Questions over ‘Intent’ When the matter reached the High Court, the bench raised serious concerns regarding the actions of Collector Riju Bafna. Two key issues were highlighted: 1. Irregular assignment of charge
The Court noted that on 20 January, prior to any formal suspension, the Collector had already assigned Rangshahi’s charge to Nimisha Parmar, a Sub-Inspector-level officer. This, the Court observed, suggested that the decision to remove Rangshahi had effectively been made in advance. 2. Hasty suspension order
On 16 February, Rangshahi submitted his reply, and on the very same day, Divisional Commissioner Ashish Singh issued a suspension order. The Court remarked that this indicated a lack of proper consideration of the response before taking action. ‘Sarthak App’ and allegations of fake attendance A separate investigation report cited by the Collector alleged that Rangshahi had recorded false attendance using the ‘Sarthak App’. According to the report, attendance was not marked on seven out of 34 working days, while on 15 days, ‘check-ins’ were allegedly made using old photos or videos. Rangshahi denied these claims and challenged the order halting his salary in court, seeking relief. The High Court’s interim order has dealt a setback to the Collector’s action. At present, Vinay Rangshahi will continue to serve as District Excise Officer in Shajapur. However, the state government and the Divisional Commissioner retain the option to present their position further. The issue of assigning charge ‘contrary to rules’ has now emerged as a significant challenge for the Collector. The dispute reflects a broader tension between administrative discipline and adherence to procedural safeguards. While the Collector has emphasised accountability and strict governance, some officials view the episode as indicative of personal bias and procedural violations. Further action likely Speaking to Bhaskar, Collector Riju Bafna alleged that Rangshahi resides in Indore and seldom reports to Shajapur. He claimed that the officer has been consistently absent and that his past record reflects similar conduct. He also dismissed the stenographer’s claims as incorrect, alleging that Rangshahi switches off his phone when contacted. The Collector stated that the administration respects the court’s order and has informed the Divisional Commissioner, adding that further action will be taken in accordance with their directions.