Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 820 (ALL)

Jayanti Prasad Shukla v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti

1986-10-21

S.SAGHIR AHMAD, U.C.SRIVASTAVA

body1986
ORDER 1. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the order dated 17th July, 1986 by which he has been placed under suspension. 2. Notice of this petition was received on behalf of the opposite parties by Sri P.C. Verma on 6-10-1986 but he stated that he would not file a counter-affidavit and would argue the case on the basis of the instructions given to him. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. One of the contentions raised in this petition by the petitioner on which he has challenged the order of suspension is that it was passed by an officer who was not his appointing authority. 5. The petitioner's services are governed by the U.P. Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralised) Services Regulation, 1984 as he is admittedly an Amin and is a member of the Centralised Services. Regulation 3(a) defines the appointing authority as under : - "3(a) 'Appointing authority' in relation to - - (1) the post of Secretary of the Market Committees means the Director, (2) the posts of other officers of the Centralised Service means the Regional Deputy Director." 6. Director is the appointing authority of the Secretaries working in the Market Committees whereas in respect of the other posts it is the Regional Deputy Director who is the appointing authority. 7. Regulation 3(j ) contains the definition of Regional Deputy Director which means the Deputy Director Mandis incharge of the region in which Market Committee is situate. 8. Regulation 3(k) defines "region" as the area within the jurisdiction of a Deputy Director allotted by the Director for general superintendence from time to time. 9. Since the petitioner is an Amin, his appointing authority would be Regional Deputy Director and not the Additional Director (Administration) who has passed the order of suspension. The contention that the Additional Director (Administration) being the higher authority could have passed the order of suspension cannot be accepted in the face of the specific provision contained in the Regulations that the appointing authority of the post of Amin would be Regional Deputy Director. 10. Regulation 43 provides that the Rules relating to disciplinary proceedings, appeals and representations against punishment, applicable to the employees of the State Government shall mutatis mutandis apply to the members of the contralised services. 10. Regulation 43 provides that the Rules relating to disciplinary proceedings, appeals and representations against punishment, applicable to the employees of the State Government shall mutatis mutandis apply to the members of the contralised services. A Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (S. Saghir Ahmad) was a member, has already held in W.P. No. 7156 of 1986, Kapil Deo Shukla v. Director, Raj Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Lucknow and others that the word "disciplinary proceedings" occurring in Regulation 43 are very comprehensive and they would also cover "suspension" within their ambit. 11. In view of Regulation 43 the provisions contained in U.P. Civil Services (Classification of Control and Appeal) Rules relating to suspension would be applicable to the members of the Centralised Services working in the Market Committees. Such a provision is contained in Rule 49-A of the Classification Rules under which an appointing authority or an authority subordinate to the appointing authority to whom the powers are delegated by the appointing authority can pass an order of suspension. 12. In the instant case the power has been exercised by the Additional Director (Administration) who admittedly is an authority higher in rank to the Regional Deputy Director who is the appointing authority of the petitioner. The order of suspension impugned in the writ petition cannot, therefore, be said to have been passed by the competent authority. 13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 17th July, 1986 contained in Annexure 1 is hereby quashed with the observation that it will be open to the competent authority to pass a fresh order of suspension. There will be no order as to costs.