Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1172 (MP)

ASHOK NORONHA v. M A KHAN

2008-09-23

RAJENDRA MENON

body2008
Judgment ( 1. ) CHALLENGING the order-dated 13. 3. 2008 passed by the State Government suspending the petitioner under Rule 9 read with Rule 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules)1966 [hereinafter referred to as rules of 1966], petitioner has filed this petition. ( 2. ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Managing director of Madhya Pradesh Laghu Udyog Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as nigam), on 26. 7. 2002. On 3. 8. 2004 one Shri Ashish Upadhyay was posted as Managing Director of this Nigam. At that point of time there was no order pertaining to posting of the petitioner. However, petitioner was thereafter designated as Additional Managing Director of the Nigam and allowed to function in the said capacity. Vide order-dated 31. 1. 2005, the State Government appointed the petitioner as Managing Director of Madhya Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to as board) after taking over his services in the Commerce and Industries Department temporarily and until further orders. It is the cases of the petitioner that this posting in the Board was in fact an order of deputation, which was issued without consent of the petitioner. ( 3. ) CHALLENGING the order appointing Shri Ashish Upadhyay as Managing director and sending the petitioner on deputation to the Board, Writ Petition no. 1632/2005 (S) has been filed by the petitioner, which is also heard and decided analogously alongwith this petition. Petitioner claims that during the pendency of writ Petition No. 1632/2005, vide order-dated 8. 8. 2006, State Government repatriated the petitioner to his parent department i. e. . . Nigam, and when no post on which petitioner was to work on repatriation in the parent department was indicated, petitioner filed an interim application in Writ Petition No. 1632/2005 (S)which was rejected on 4. 11. 2006 and, therefore, petitioner filed Writ Appeal no. 1159/2006. On 23. 11. 2006, notice was issued by the Division Bench in the said Writ Appeal and a direction was issued that petitioner should be permitted to continue as Managing Director of the Board. However, in between when the petitioner was suspended by the impugned order dated 13. 3. 2008, vide Annexure p/1, petitioner brought this fact to the notice of the Division Bench, where the writ Appeal was pending. However, in between when the petitioner was suspended by the impugned order dated 13. 3. 2008, vide Annexure p/1, petitioner brought this fact to the notice of the Division Bench, where the writ Appeal was pending. Initially, the Division Bench took a serious note of the manner in which petitioner was suspended, but finally the Writ Appeal was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, due to suspension of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that suspension of the petitioner ordered by the impugned order is illegal and cannot be sustained. ( 4. ) DURING the course of hearing of this petition, assailing the order of suspension smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Counsel raised the following three grounds: (i) The first contention is that once petitioner was sent on deputation to the Board, then by virtue of Section 29-2 (c) of the Madhya Pradesh Gramodyog Adhiniyam, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as adhiniyam of 1978), services of the petitioner would be governed by the Regulations framed under section 29 i. e. . . Annexure P/8, known as M. P. Khadi and Gramodyog Regulation, 1980. Under the aforesaid Regulation it is stated that only the Board of the Directors can take action against the petitioner and, therefore, suspension ordered by the State Government is unsustainable. (ii) The second contention is that petitioner is an employee of the Nigam; the terms and conditions of the petitioner are governed by the Rules applicable to employees of the Nigam and, therefore, the provisions of Rules of 1966 will not apply in the case of the petitioner, who is an employee of the Nigam. It was pointed out by learned counsel that when a person is employed by an Autonomous board like the University or a Statutory Body created under an enactment like the M. P. Electricity Board, employees of such autonomous Bodies or Statutory Authorities are governed by the rules and the Service Conditions applicable to the Autonomous bodies or the Corporation and not the Rules of 1966. Interalia contending that petitioner is an employee of the Nigam and to such an employee the Rules of 1966 does not apply, challenge is made to the order of suspension. Interalia contending that petitioner is an employee of the Nigam and to such an employee the Rules of 1966 does not apply, challenge is made to the order of suspension. (iii) The third ground of challenge is malafides on the part of the respondents and interference made at the instance of a Local MLA, without there being any prima facie case or basis for suspension. ( 5. ) SMT. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Advocate, by taking me through the provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1978 (Annexure P/10); the provisions of Sections 5. 7 and 29 of the aforesaid Adhiniyam; and, the Regulations framed under the aforesaid Adhiniyam as contained in Annexure P/8, emphasized that once petitioners services are taken over temporarily by the Khadi and Gramodyog Board, the power to suspend and take disciplinary action is vested only in the said Board constituted under section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1978, and the State Government does not have any power to take action. It is stated that suspension of the petitioner and further action with regard to any act committed by the petitioner while in service of the Board, is to be done in accordance to the Adhiniyam of 1978 and the Regulations framed vide Annexure P/8. In that view of the matter the order passed by the State Government is said to be unsustainable. ( 6. ) AS an alternative submission in this regard Smt. Shobha Menon, learned senior Advocate, argued that all the orders passed sending the petitioner on deputation are issued by the General Administration Department (hereinafter referred to as gad) of the State Government and, therefore, even if it is assumed that the State Government can take action, it is only the GAD which can issue the orders of suspension and not the Gramodyog Department. On this ground also, challenge is made to the aforesaid action. ( 7. On this ground also, challenge is made to the aforesaid action. ( 7. ) AS far as the second ground is concerned, it was urged by Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Advocate, that petitioner is an employee of the Nigam and, therefore, his terms and conditions of appointment are governed by Article 80 and 83 of the Memorandum of Association of the aforesaid Nigam, as he is an employee of the Nigam, the Service Rules applicable to the employees of the nigam will govern the Terms and Conditions, of appointment, including the procedure and power to take disciplinary action and the Rules of 1966 are not applicable to the petitioner, being an employee of the Nigam, therefore, action taken under the aforesaid Rules of 1966 is said to be unsustainable. ( 8. ) FINALLY in support of the third ground it was argued that the entire action is taken in view of certain questions asked in the Vidhan Sabha and the complaint (Annexure P/18) submitted by the a Local MLA. It is argued, because the petitioner did not succumb to the demands of the Local MLA, malafidely the Local MLA has complained and the same is baseless and even in the answer to the question in the Vidhan Sabha it is found that petitioner is not responsible for any lapses and the same were also not found to be established, that being so, it is argued that the action initiated for suspending the petitioner and taking disciplinary action is unsustainable and, therefore, on these grounds interference into the matter is sought for. ( 9. ) SHRI Shailesh Mishra, learned counsel for the State, Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, and Shri VS. Shroti, Senior Advocate, and shri A. P. Shroti, Advocate, for respondent No. 5, refuted the aforesaid contentions and pointed out that even though petitioner is an employee of the Nigam, but when the petitioner was appointed as a Director and subsequently as Managing director and Additional Managing Director of the Nigam by virtue of the powers conferred on the State Government under Articles 80 and 83 of the Memorandum of Association, petitioners services were temporarily taken over from the Nigam by the Commerce and Industries Department and, therefore, it is the State government which is empowered to take action once the petitioner is appointed as Director, Additional Managing Director and Managing Director of the Nigam. It is stated that the petitioner at the relevant time was holding the post of Managing director on which post he was appointed by the State Government and, therefore, the State Government is entitled to take action in the matter. Inviting my attention to Rule 20 of the Rules of 1966, learned counsel for the respondents emphasized that as the services of the petitioner was lent to the Khadi Gramodyog Board, action taken by the borrowing department i. e. . the Gramodyog Department being in accordance to the provisions of Rule 20 (1) read with the proviso thereof, suspension of the petitioner by the Government Department is proper and legal. ( 10. ) AS far as applicability of the Rules of 1966 is concerned, it is argued by Shri a. P. Shroti, learned counsel for the respondents, that under Rule 9, a Government servant can be suspended under the Rules of 1966. Referring to the meaning of the term government servant as contained in Rule 2 (f) of the Rules of 1966 and referring to sub-clause (iii), Shri A. P. Shroti submitted that once petitioners services were temporarily placed at the disposal of the State Government in the department of Commerce and Industry, then the Rules of 1966 would apply to the petitioner, on account of his being a government servant within the meaning of the said Rules. Accordingly, it is argued that the Rules of 1966 would apply in the case of the petitioner and in suspending the petitioner under the said Rule, respondents have not committed any error. ( 11. ) AS far as malafides and taking action against the petitioner is concerned, shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, and Shri Shroti, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, pointed out that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Referring to the charge sheet issued to the petitioner, it is emphasized by learned counsel for the respondents that 13 serious charges have been levelled against the petitioner and the petitioner having committed serious acts of commission and omission while serving in the Khadi and Gramodyog Board during the period 2. 2. 2005 to 25. 11. 2006, action taken for suspending him is proper. There is no malafides involved in suspending the petitioner and, therefore, the order of suspension does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, on these grounds respondents seek for dismissal of this petition. ( 12. 2. 2005 to 25. 11. 2006, action taken for suspending him is proper. There is no malafides involved in suspending the petitioner and, therefore, the order of suspension does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, on these grounds respondents seek for dismissal of this petition. ( 12. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records it is clear that petitioner was initially appointed in the Nigam and was substantively holding the post of Chief General Manager in the said Nigam. In the connected petition filed by the petitioner, which has been heard today i. e. . Writ Petition No. 1632/2005 (S), various averments are made by the petitioner and certain documents have also been filed, which are relevant for deciding the disputes involved in the present petition also. ( 13. ) IT is stated by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1632/2005 (S) that there are two level of appointments in the Nigam. Internal appointments upto the rank of chief General Manager is done by the Board of Directors of the Nigam; and, appointments of Additional Managing Director, Directors and Managing Directors are done by the State Government under Articles 80 and 83 of the Memorandum of Association applicable to the Nigam. Articles 80 and 83 of the Memorandum of Association is reproduced herein under: "80 (a) (1) The Directors shall be appointed by the State government and shall be paid such salary and/or allowance as the state Government may from time to time determine subject to the provision of Section 314 of the Act. (2) The Chairman and non-official Directors shall hold the office for a period of two years from the date of their appointment as Chairman and Directors respectively. The Managing Director shall retire and his/her ceasing to hold the office of Managing Director. The State Government shall determine the tenure for which the other Director will hold office. A retired Director shall be eligible for reappointment. (3) The State Government shall have the power to remove any Director including the Chairman and the Managing Director from office at any time in his absolute discretion. (4) The State Government shall have the right to fill any vacancy in the office of the Director caused by retirement, removal, resignation, death or otherwise. (3) The State Government shall have the power to remove any Director including the Chairman and the Managing Director from office at any time in his absolute discretion. (4) The State Government shall have the right to fill any vacancy in the office of the Director caused by retirement, removal, resignation, death or otherwise. " (b) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 83 (1) The State Government may appoint one of the Directors to be the Managing Director who shall be a whole time employee of the Company or a Board of Management consisting of two directors namely the Managing Director and the other to be known as Additional Managing Director who shall be a whole time employee of the Company for the conduct or management of the business of the Company subject to the control and supervision of the Board of Directors. In case of the Board of Management, the additional Managing Director shall be appointed from amongst the officers of the Nigam. The Managing Director of the Board of Management so appointed may be authorised by the Board to exercise such powers and discretion individually in relation to the affairs of the Company as are specifically delegated to him/them by the Board and the State Government and are not required to be done by the Board of Directors of the Company at the general meeting under the Act. (2) The Managing Director/additional Managing Director shall be paid such salary and allowances as may be fixed by the State Government. The Nigam employees who have put in more than 8 years service as Chief General Manager shall also be eligible for the above posts. In case of such appointment from the Nigams cadre one post of Chief General Manager will be kept in abeyance. " (Emphasis supplied)A perusal of the aforesaid Articles would clearly indicate that Director in the Nigam is appointed by the State Government and the Chairman, Managing director and Additional Managing Director are also appointed by the State government and they are paid such salaries and allowances as are fixed by the state Government and they are not employees of the Nigam. A Nigam employee who has put in 8 years of service as a Chief General Manager also becomes entitled for appointment as a Director/managing Director/additional Managing director. A Nigam employee who has put in 8 years of service as a Chief General Manager also becomes entitled for appointment as a Director/managing Director/additional Managing director. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid provision that a Director, Managing Director and Additional Managing Director in the Nigam are appointed by the State Government and available in the record of the said petition are order- dated 30. 6. 2000 (Annexure P/9) appointing the petitioner as Director; subsequently appointing him as Additional Managing Director and Managing Director vide annexures P/10 and P/12 respectively. All these orders are issued by the State government and the petitioners appointment in the Nigam as Director, Managing director and Additional Managing Director is done by the State Government. Petitioner has filed a document pertaining to certain opinion rendered with regard to status and functions of the Chairman, Managing Director and the Additional managing Directors in the Nigam. The said document is filed as Annexure P/11, in W. P. No. 1632/2005 (S ). This document also indicates that appointment upto the level of Chief General Manager in the Nigam is done by the Board of Directors; and, appointment on the post of Chairman, Managing Director, Additional Managing director and Directors are Government level appointments and these appointments are outside the purview of appointments made under the service rules of the nigam. In this regard, the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph 5. 2 of writ Petition No. 1632/2005 (S), becomes relevant. Petitioner in the said paragraph has so averred: "5. 2 The appointment of Chairman, Managing Director, additional Managing Director, Board of Management and the directors on its Board are Government level appointments and outside the purview of appointments made under the service rules. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 14. ) FROM the aforesaid contentions raised by the petitioner, it is clear that petitioner himself admits that once he is appointed as a Managing Director/additional Managing Director/director by the Government, the service rules of the Nigam will not apply to the petitioner. From the averments made by the petitioner in the said writ petition, it is clear that petitioner has been appointed initially as a director of the Nigam in the year 1996 and subsequently as an Additional Managing director and a Managing Director of the Nigam. From the averments made by the petitioner in the said writ petition, it is clear that petitioner has been appointed initially as a director of the Nigam in the year 1996 and subsequently as an Additional Managing director and a Managing Director of the Nigam. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner became a Director/managing Director/additional Managing Director in the Nigam and before doing so, his services were temporarily taken over by the state Government in the Department of Commerce and Industries. It is after taking over the services of the petitioner by the State Government that he has been appointed in Nigam, as a Director. The orders in this regard filed by the petitioner in the said writ petition i. e. . Annexures P/8, P/9 and P/10 indicate that the services of the petitioner were temporarily taken over by the State Government in the Department of Commerce and Industries and thereafter, he has been appointed as a Director and Additional Managing Director and thereafter he was sent on deputation to the Board. In this regard, order-dated 3. 8. 2004 (Annexure P/27); order-dated 24. 1. 2005 (Annexure P/34); and, order-dated 31. 1. 2005 (Annexure P/35) become relevant. A perusal of these documents clearly indicate that services of the petitioner were temporarily taken over by the State Government in the Department of Commerce and Industries and thereafter, he was sent on deputation. It is, therefore, clear that petitioner became a government servant as defined under Rule 2 (f) (iii) of the Rules of 1966. A government servant under the aforesaid Rule is defined to mean a person who being in service of a local or other authority and whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the state Government. It is, therefore, clear from a complete reading of the orders passed in the case of the petitioner that his services were taken over from the corporation temporarily and placed at the disposal of the State Government and, therefore, petitioner becomes a government servant within the meaning of Rule 2 (f) (iii), of the Rules of 1966, and in that view of the matter the Rules of 1966 would apply to the petitioner, ( 15. ) THE provisions of Rule 20 of the Rules of 1966 are para materia with Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as rules of 1965]. ) THE provisions of Rule 20 of the Rules of 1966 are para materia with Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as rules of 1965]. In the case of R. B. Verma Vs. The Food Corporation of India and Others 1973 Lab. I. C. 1063, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had considered the question of suspension of an employee of the Food Corporation of India taken on deputation by the Government of India. In the said case, the words other authority appearing in Rule 20, of the rules of 1965 was taken note of and it was held that these words are not defined in the Rules, but the words other authorities would mean authorities like the Food corporation of India or other instrumentalities of the State, which come within the purview of State or other authorities as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution. After considering the meaning of the word other authority and after placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Mohan Lal ( AIR 1967 SC 1857 ), considering the dictionary meaning of the word authority, it has been held by the Division Bench of the allahabad High Court that when the employee of the Food Corporation of India is taken on deputation by the Government of India, then the Government of India becomes the borrowing authority and Rule 20 of the Rules of 1965 would apply to an employee of the Food Corporation of India, who is taken on deputation by the government of India. In the said case, various judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of defining the word authority, other authorities have been taken note of and the principle laid down with regard to power to be exercised by borrowing authority under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1965. In the present case also, the Nigam is a company fully owned by the State of Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, would come within the purview of the authority or other authorities as appearing in Rule 2 (f) (ii) and Rule 20 (i) of the Rules of 1966 and, therefore, the State Government and the Gramodyog Department can suspend the petitioner exercising powers under the Rules of 1966. ( 16. ( 16. ) CONTENTION of the petitioner made vide ground (ii) to the effect that petitioner is an employee of the Nigam and, therefore, his services are governed by the rules of the said Nigam and not by the Rules of 1966 is wholly misconceived. On a complete reading of petitioners own contentions made in Writ Petition No. 1632/2005 (S) and the documents available in the said petition, it is clear that petitioner who was holding the post of Chief General Manager was appointed initially as a director and subsequently as a Additional Managing Director and finally as a managing Director by the Commerce and Industries Department of the State government and by taking over his services temporarily, he has been sent on deputation to the Khadi and Gramodyog Board, on which post he has been suspended, that being so, the second ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is unsustainable. Once the petitioners services are taken over by the State government temporarily, petitioner becomes a government servant within the meaning of Rule 2 (f) (iii) of the Rules of 1966. That apart, petitioner having been appointed as a Director and Managing Director of the State Government in view of Articles 80 and 83 read with Article 127 of the Memorandum of Association of the Nigam is subject to the Rules and Regulations and control of the State government, and the State Government is empowered to take action against the petitioner. Article 127 of the Memorandum of Association contemplates as under: "127. Notwithstanding anything contained in any of these Articles the State Government may from time to time, issue such directives or instructions as he may consider necessary in regard to the affairs or conduct of the business of the Company or the directors thereof, and in the like manner may vary and annul such directions or instructions. The Directors shall duly comply with and give immediate effect to directions and instructions so issued. " A complete reading of the aforesaid Article in the Memorandum of association would clearly show that petitioner after his appointment as Director in the Nigam is subject to control, for all actions, by the State Government and in applying the Rules of 1966, the State Government has not committed any error. In that view of the matter, the objections raised by ground No. (ii) in this petition is found to be wholly unsustainable. In that view of the matter, the objections raised by ground No. (ii) in this petition is found to be wholly unsustainable. ( 17. ) EVEN otherwise, this question can be considered from a different angle. In the petition petitioner has only stated that he is an employee of the Nigam and, therefore, the State Government is not empowered to take action and the Rules of 1966 are not applicable. However, no Rule or Regulation or Bylaw applicable in the Nigam is brought to the notice of this Court or relied upon to show that petitioners service conditions are governed by the said Rules or the power of suspension is conferred on some other authority under the said Rules. On the contrary as indicated hereinabove, petitioner has made a categorical statement in writ Petition No. 1632/2005 (S) that the appointment of the petitioner made by the government on the post of Managing Director, Additional Managing Director is outside the purview of appointment made under the service rules of the Nigam. If that be so/once it is held that the appointing authority of the petitioner on the post of Managing Director/additional Managing Director is the State Government, then by virtue of the provisions of Section 16 of the M. P. General Clauses Act, 1957, the State Government being the appointing authority is empowered to suspend or dismiss the petitioner. In the light of the provisions of Section 16 of the General clauses Act, it has to be held that Government being the appointing authority of the petitioner on the post of Managing Director/additional Managing Director, has a right to suspend the petitioner who is a public servant appointed by the government. If this analogy is applied, then also the argument advanced by the learned counsel becomes unsustainable. ( 18. ) AS far as ground No. (i) pertaining to action taken by the Gramodyog Department is concerned, once it is held that the Rules of 1966 are applicable to the petitioner, then the right to suspend the petitioner under Rule 9 is available to the appointing authority which is the State Government, as the State Government has appointed the petitioner on the post of Managing Director of the Board, and the power under Rule 20 entitles the borrowing department to take action in the matter. In the case of the petitioner, as he is on deputation to the Khadi and Gramodyog Board, the Gramodyog Department being the borrowing department is empowered to take action by virtue of the powers vested in it under Rule 20 (1)of the Rules of 1966. ( 19. ) AS far as applicability of the Regulations framed under the Adhiniyam of 1978 are concerned, the said argument is wholly misconceived: The Regulations framed under Section 29 of the Adhiniyam of 1978 are only applicable with regard to conditions of service of officers appointed to the Khadi and Gramodyog Board, but does not apply to other persons who are appointed by the State Government. The provisions of Section 29 (2) (c) makes it clear that the Regulation framed under the said section will apply to all employees other than those who are appointed by the State Government to the services of the Board i. e. . . the Madhya Pradesh khadi Thatha Gramodyog Board. In the present case as petitioner is appointed to the Board by the State Government, therefore, the Regulations framed under section 29 of the Adhiniyam of 1978 will not be applicable in the case of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is not right in contending that the petitioner can be suspended only by the Board and not by the State Government. The Regulations framed vide Annexure P/8 will not apply in the case of the petitioner, petitioner being an appointee in the Board by the State Government. That being so, the first ground of attack made is also not sustainable and has to be rejected. ( 20. ) AS far as the third ground is concerned, it is seen that except for contending that action is taken malafidely by the State Government, no substantial material is adduced before this Court to show that action is taken malafidely. On the contrary, the charges levelled against the petitioner and the imputations made therein clearly indicates that while petitioner was working as a Managing Director in the Board, petitioner had indulged in serious acts of misconduct because of which action is taken against the petitioner. The charges levelled against the petitioner indicates that they are serious in nature. The following allegations are levelled against the petitioner with regard to his working as a Managing Director of the Khadi and Gramodyog Board during the period 2. 2. The charges levelled against the petitioner indicates that they are serious in nature. The following allegations are levelled against the petitioner with regard to his working as a Managing Director of the Khadi and Gramodyog Board during the period 2. 2. 2005 to September 2006 and again upto 25. 11. 2006. The allegations levelled and the charges against the petitioner as indicated in the charge sheet (Annexure R/5) dated 19. 3. 2008, are as under:- (i) That he deliberately did not make the payment to the labourers and employees at the Blanket. Manufacturing Centre, mandsaur as per directions of the Court and deliberately disobeyed the directions of this Honble Court; (ii) That he created obstacles in the proper functioning of the labourers at the said centre by not making timely and proper arrangements for raw material; (iii) That he deliberately did not make payment to the regular employees of the said centre of the Board for a period of 10 months and further intentionally did not pay the grant and the amount of rebate from the Government; (iv) That he did not submit the report to the Government on the complaints received about violation of the administrative and financial norms of the Government despite reminders and D. O Letters and thus did not comply with the instructions issued by the state Government; (v) That even though the proposal for increase of the age of superannuation for the employees of the Board was rejected by the Government, he again put up the said proposal before the directors of the Board and got himself empowered to grant extension in the age of superannuation which was contrary to the government instructions; (vi) That he received a sum of Rs. 7. 00 lacs on account of illness of his wife Smt. Rita Noronha from the Board for the period april, 2006 to November, 2007, whereast Smt. Rita Noronha herself was a Government servant and was entitled to medical reimbursement for herself. 7. 00 lacs on account of illness of his wife Smt. Rita Noronha from the Board for the period april, 2006 to November, 2007, whereast Smt. Rita Noronha herself was a Government servant and was entitled to medical reimbursement for herself. Thus, the finds of the Board were misused; (vii) That against the provisions as contained in Section 10 of the M. P. Khadi and Gram Udyog Board Adhiniyam, 1978, he gave on contract the shops run by the Board to the employees/individuals causing loss to the Board; (viii) That he appointed agent against the rules; (ix) That against the order of the Khadi and Gramodyog Commission, Government of India, the petitioner did not realize the penal interest from the borrowers who were granted loan by the Board out of the funds received from the consortium; (x) That he did not deal properly with the inquiries instituted against the officers and employees of the Board and did not exercise proper control as a result of which several cases of departmental inquiry got prolonged and because the inquiry report was not received, no decision could be taken in those cases for a long time; (xi) That even after the receipt of inquiry report in the case of Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, P. K. Dixit and C. S. Solanki and Manager Vidya Ram Singh Gurjar in the inquiries of corruption against them, no decision was taken despite directions by the Government. " As serious charges are levelled against the petitioner and charges are based on complaint made by the Local MLA, the same cannot be interfered with on merit at this stage, when the enquiry is pending. Merely because the Local MLA has made a complaint, malafides cannot be attributed on this ground. The Local MLA being the representative of the general public is empowered to bring to the notice of the State Government illegalities committed by the public functionaries and if a complaint is made by the MLA and action is taken, that by itself cannot be a ground to attribute malafides. Until and unless other factors are available to impute malafides to the aforesaid action of the MLA, this principle laid down by the supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U. P. and Others 2007 8 SCC 150 , can be applied in the present case also. Until and unless other factors are available to impute malafides to the aforesaid action of the MLA, this principle laid down by the supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U. P. and Others 2007 8 SCC 150 , can be applied in the present case also. Accordingly, the third ground raised is also not substantiated by the petitioner by any cogent material and, therefore, the same cannot be a ground for interference into the matter. ( 21. ) ACCORDINGLY, finding no ground for interfering into the matter on the grounds raised in this petition, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.