ORDER J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner has assailed the validity of the order passed by the Respondent No. 3, Shri R.M. Pandey, City Engineer, in-charge Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ratlam dated 22-4-2006 Annexure-P/1, by which he is placed under suspension. 2. It is the case of Petitioner that as per order Annexure-P/2 dated 16-5-2000 passed by the Respondent No. 2, he was promoted as Revenue Officer in the scale of 5500-9000/- , however, the appointing authority of Petitioner is the Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ratlam. The Commissioner was required to appear in a Court case at Sagar, however, his general charge was delivered to Respondent No. 3 vide note-sheet dated 20-4-2006 filed as Annexure-R/6. This note-sheet of delivery of charge is signed by the Commissioner itself and approved by Respondent No. 4. (Mayor) 3. It is said by Learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner that in the matter of his suspension power can be exercised by the Mayor-in-Council or the Commissioner as the case may be; as per Sections 55, 57 and 58 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter it shall be called as 'Corporation Act' in short). In the present case, when the Respondent No. 2 was to go to Sagar in Court case and not available at Ratlam only for 2 days i.e. on 21-4-2006 and 22-4-2006, Respondent No. 3 has passed the order to place the Petitioner under suspension vide Annexure-P/1 dated 21-4-2006. It is further a case of Petitioner that Respondent No. 3, Mr. R.M. Pandey was merely holding the general charge to the post of Commissioner Municipal Corporation, he cannot pass any order of suspension by exercising disciplinary powers because he was not appointed as Commissioner Municipal Corporation, in exercise of the power under Section 57(2) of the Corporation Act. In such circumstances, the order as passed by Respondent No. 3 is illegal and without jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid submission, prayer is made to quash the order of suspension and to post him as Revenue Officer after revocation thereof. 4. Per contra, Respondents have filed their return and in the return, it is said that because of Petitioner has not carried out the instructions of Respondent No. 4 i.e. Mayor and mis-behaved with her. Therefore, in terms of oral instructions issued by Respondent No. 4 Petitioner was placed under suspension. 4. Per contra, Respondents have filed their return and in the return, it is said that because of Petitioner has not carried out the instructions of Respondent No. 4 i.e. Mayor and mis-behaved with her. Therefore, in terms of oral instructions issued by Respondent No. 4 Petitioner was placed under suspension. However, it is said that order of suspension has rightly been passed by the Respondent No. 3. It is further said that Petitioner has already been served with the charge-sheet as per Annexures-R/1 and R/2, for alleged misconduct, therefore, interference in the matter of suspension is not permissible. 5. It is also set forth in the return that Respondent No. 3 is fully empowered to exercise the power of Commissioner, in view of the provisions of Section 57 of the Corporation Act. It is further said that, in terms of the order Annexure-R/4 dated 20-1-1997 passed by the Government of M.P., Respondent No. 3 was appointed as Commissioner, however, he has rightly exercised the power while passing the order of suspension dated 22-4-2006 Annexure-P/1. In view of the aforesaid, it is urged that power of suspension as exercised by Respondent No. 3 is in conformity to Section 57 of the Corporation Act, and as per the Government order Annexure-R/4. It is further said that Respondent No. 2 has granted ex-post-facto approval as per Annexure-R/7, therefore, the order of suspension be now to be treated as passed by Respondent No. 2. Hence, the plea with respect to issuance of the incompetent order of suspension by Respondent No. 3 is not tenable, because it has been ratified later on. It is urged that petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard, Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. I have gone through the relevant provisions of the Corporation Act, which are necessary to decide the controversy involved in the present case. The Section 5(11) defines 'Commissioner' which is reproduced as under: (11) 'Commissioner' means the Municipal Commissioner for the city appointed under Section 54 and includes an Acting Commissioner appointed under Sub-section (2) of Section 57 and any municipal officer empowered under this Act to exercise, perform or discharge any of the powers, duties or functions of the Commissioner to the extent to which such officer is so empowered. 7. As per the definition, Section 54 deals the appointment and removal of Commissioner. 7. As per the definition, Section 54 deals the appointment and removal of Commissioner. Section 55 indicates the power of Commissioner. Section 57 deals the situation when the Commissioner is on leave. Section 58 specifies the condition of service of officers and servants of Municipal Corporation. Thus, to explain the powers of Commissioner with respect to the officers and servants, relevant extract of these provisions are reproduced hereinbelow: 55. Power of Commissioner. - The Commissioner shall be the principal executive officer of the Corporation and all other officers and servants of the Corporation except the servants and officers of the Corporation officer shall be subordinate to him He shall have the right to speak at and otherwise take part in any meeting of the Corporation or any Committee thereof, but shall not be entitled to vote or to move any proposition. 57. Grant of leave of absence to Commissioner. - (1) The Government may with the previous consent of the Corporation grant leave of absence to the Commissioner. (2) During any absence on leave of the Commissioner the Government shall appoint a person to act as the Commissioner. (3) Every person so appointed shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Commissioner by this Act or by any other enactment for the time being in force and shall be subject to the same liabilities, restrictions and conditions to which the Commissioner is liable and shall receive such monthly salary and allowances, as the Government may determine. 58. Appointment and condition of service of Corporation officers and servants, - (1) Subject to the rules made by the State Government in respect of the Set-up, strength, Recruitment, appointment. Pay-scales, allowances and other conditions of service of officers and servants of the Corporation, the Corporation shall appoint such officers and servants as may be necessary for the efficient performance of the functions of the Corporation: Provided that, (i) the power of appointing any person on a municipal post which carries a maximum scale of pay as the State Government may, from time to time, by an order in writing specify, shall vest in the Mayor-in-Council or the Commissioner. 8. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that the Commissioner shall be the Principal Executive Officer of the Corporation. He may be appointed or removed as per the provisions of Section 54 of the Corporation Act. 8. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that the Commissioner shall be the Principal Executive Officer of the Corporation. He may be appointed or removed as per the provisions of Section 54 of the Corporation Act. He can exercise all the powers as a Principal Executive Officer for their employees. If he proceeds on leave, the Government shall appoint a person to act as Commissioner in his absence on leave. He is the appointing authority of the officers and employees of the Corporation. Because the powers of such appointment are vested in Mayor-in-Council or with the Commissioner as the case may be. 9. I have come across to Notification No. F. 4-112-XVIII-I-92.- Dated 2nd February, 1994 published in M.P. Rajpatra (Asadharan) dated 2-2-1994, by which the power of Section 57(i)(ii) of Municipal Corporation Act has been delegated to the Director of Urban Administration, M.P. Thus the order of appointment of the Commissioner under Section 57(ii) can also be passed by the Director of Urban Administration by virtue of delegation of powers, when the permanent Commissioner is on leave. 10. I have also come across to the Rules, which are framed by the Government of M.P. in exercise of powers conferred to them under Section 433 read with Sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Municipal Corporation Act. Under Section 58(1)(2) of the Act, it is apparent that the power of appointment of the employees and the officers of Municipal Corporation shall vest in Mayor-in-Council or with Commissioner subject to the rules made by the Government. Under Rule 1(b), the appointing authority is the Mayor-in-Council or the Commissioner as the case may be. In view of the language of Section 58 as well as of the rules, the order of suspension of the Petitioner may be passed either by Mayor-in-Council or by the Commissioner. Under the rules, it has also been specified that, the provisions of M.P. Civil Services, Classification Control and Appeal Rules, 1966 is having it application, to the employees of Corporation. Thus power of suspension can be exercised either by the appointing authority or by the disciplinary authority. 11. In the present case the order of suspension has been passed by Respondent No. 3 R.M. Pandey, who was given the general charge because Respondent No. 2 was required to go to attend the Court proceedings at Sagar. Thus power of suspension can be exercised either by the appointing authority or by the disciplinary authority. 11. In the present case the order of suspension has been passed by Respondent No. 3 R.M. Pandey, who was given the general charge because Respondent No. 2 was required to go to attend the Court proceedings at Sagar. Respondent No. 3 has passed the order impugned dated 22-4-2006 Annexure-P/1 placing the Petitioner under suspension in exercise of the power of Commissioner or in exercise of the disciplinary power. The Respondents have submitted that as per notification Annexure-R/4 dated 20-1-1997 Respondent No. 3 has been appointed as Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Ratlam. Therefore, he has rightly used his power in the capacity of the Commissioner. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts, the controversy involved in the present, case is whether the order Annexure-R/4 dated 20-1-1997 passed by the Government of M.P. Local Self Department can be treated as the order of appointment of Commissioner of Municipal Council Ratlam in favour of Mr. R.M. Pandey, Respondent No. 3 City Engineer or not? It is also to be dealt here with whether the order passed by Respondent No. 3 has been ratified by Respondent No. 2, as per note-sheets Annexure-R/6 and R/7 or not? 12A. Now to deal with the first question regarding delegation of the powers of Respondent No. 2 by the Government in favour of Respondent No. 3, the relevant extract of the language of order dated 20-1-1997 is required to be reproduced hereinbelow: 13. As per Section 57, it is apparent that, if Commissioner proceeds on leave, then such leave may be sanctioned by the Government, with the previous consent of the Corporation. At the same time during his absence on leave, the Government shall appoint a person to act as Commissioner. The facts of case in hand, indicates that neither the Commissioner was on leave, nor any order was passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 57 by the Government or by the Director Urban Administration to appoint the Respondent No. 3 as Commissioner. 14. After going through the language of order Annexure-R/4 reproduced as above, it does not reveal that it is the order of appointment of Commissioner, by the Government, in favour of Respondent No. 3. 14. After going through the language of order Annexure-R/4 reproduced as above, it does not reveal that it is the order of appointment of Commissioner, by the Government, in favour of Respondent No. 3. It merely indicates that if Commissioner is on leave, the work of Corporation may be looked after by the persons as specified in document Annexure-R/4. The Respondents have relied upon a document Annexure-R/4 dated 20-1-1997, indicating that it is the order passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 57 of the Corporation Act; but in view of the language of the order dated 20-1-1997 Annexure-R/4 aforementioned, it cannot be said that Respondent No. 3, Mr. R.M. Pandey was appointed by the Government by such order to exercise all the powers of Commissioner during the period of 21-4-2006 and 22-4-2006. 15. After going through the provisions of Section 58(1), it is apparent that the power of appointment of Petitioner is vested to Mayor-in-Council or with Commissioner. In the present case, Petitioner was appointed by way of promotion as per the order of Commissioner, however, Mayor-in-Council or the Commissioner is the authority competent to pass the order affecting the service condition of the employee of the Corporation. In the present case, order of suspension has been issued by the Respondent No. 3 under the instructions of Mayor. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents is not in a position to produce any resolution of Mayor-in-Council or the order passed by the Commissioner directing or approving the suspension of Petitioner. In view of the above, it is apparent that Respondent No. 3, cannot exercise the power of appointing authority or disciplinary authority to place the Petitioner under suspension. Thus, the order of suspension, which is passed by Respondent No. 3 is without any authority under the law. 16. The contention of Learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Respondent No. 2 was on leave, therefore, vide Annexure-R/6 the power of the Commissioner was given to Respondent No. 3, is misconceived. Because as per document Annexure-R/6, it is apparent that Respondent No. 2 was not on leave, he was on duty but proceeded to Sagar to appear in a Court proceedings, however, general charge was given to Respondent No. 3. Because as per document Annexure-R/6, it is apparent that Respondent No. 2 was not on leave, he was on duty but proceeded to Sagar to appear in a Court proceedings, however, general charge was given to Respondent No. 3. While having the general charge, he cannot exercise the power of appointing authority or disciplinary authority, until and unless specific order is passed in his favour under Section 57(2) of the Corporation Act. In that view of the matter, it is to be held that Respondent No. 3 cannot exercise the power under Section 58(1) of the Corporation Act. 17. Now to deal with the arguments of learned Government Advocate that the order of suspension has been ratified later on. To substantiate this contention, he has drawn my attention toward the note-sheets Annexures-R/6 and R/7. On going through the note-sheet Annexure-R/7, it is apparent that establishment in-charge has put up a note-sheet before the Respondent No, 3, Mr. R.M. Pandey; thereon he himself has noted that the order of suspension be issued and the permanent Commissioner be apprised of this fact. The note-sheet Annexure-R/6 merely indicates the delivery of general charge by the permanent Commissioner to Respondent No. 3. No other material has been produced before this Court to demonstrate ratification of the action, taken by Respondent No. 3. After going through the aforesaid documents, it is apparent that the permanent Commissioner or Mayor-in-Council as the case may be has not passed any order to ratify the orders of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Therefore, the argument as advanced by the Government Advocate that on account of subsequent approval of suspension made by the competent authority i.e. Respondent No. 2, the deficiency has been ratified is of no substance. 18. On consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated and discussed hereinabove, it is apparent that Mr. R.M. Pandey, City Engineer was not competent to place the Petitioner under suspension. The order dated 20-1-1997 Annexure-R/4 passed by the Government of M.P. Government Local self department cannot be treated as an order of appointment as Commissioner Municipal Corporation Ratlam in favour of Respondent No. 3. It is to be further held here that merely on the basis of the document Annexure-R/6 and on the strength of the document Annexure-R/7, disciplinary power cannot be exercised by an in-charge Commissioner Municipal Corporation i.e. Respondent No. 3. It is to be further held here that merely on the basis of the document Annexure-R/6 and on the strength of the document Annexure-R/7, disciplinary power cannot be exercised by an in-charge Commissioner Municipal Corporation i.e. Respondent No. 3. Therefore, the action of Respondents to place the Petitioner under suspension is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. 19. Consequently, this petition succeeds and hereby it is allowed. The order of suspension of Petitioner dated 22-6-2006 Annexure-P/1 passed by Respondent No. 3 is quashed. The Respondents are directed to treat the Petitioner on duty during that period for all purposes and to pay all consequential monetary benefits. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no order as to costs. Petition allowed