Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1304 (MP)

Sanjay Jain v. State of M. P.

2011-11-17

S.C.SHARMA

body2011
Judgment In the present case, it is an admitted fact that a resolution was passed by the Standing Committee, Municipal Council, Sanwer on 1.8.09 as the petitioner at the relevant point of time, was posted at Sanwer. He was placed under suspension on account of registration of a criminal case for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act on 14.9.09. The suspension of the petitioner was revoked for the reasons best known to the respondents on 5.11.09. The respondent Chief Municipal Officer, as the petitioner is at present posted at Barnagar, his placed the petitioner under suspension, vide order dt. 25.7.11. Section 94 of the MP Municipalities Act, 1961 empowers a Municipal Council to appointing a Sanitary Inspector, a Sub Engineer, a Revenue Inspector and an Accountant, meaning thereby, the appointing authority and disciplinary authority in respect of the petitioner, as he is holding a post of Accountant, is Municipal Council. Rule 51 of the MP Municipal Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Services Rules, 1968 deals with the disciplinary authorities and it provides that Municipal Council shall have the powers to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 49 or in respect of any Municipal employee holding the post specified under sub-section (4) of Sec. 94 of the MP Municipalities Act, 1961. In the present case, no resolution was passed at any point of time by the Municipal Council and the Chief Municipal Officer who is not the appointing authority, nor the competent authority as provided under the MP Municipal Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1968 or under Rule 9 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976 has passed the order of suspension. No document has been brought on record by learned counsel for the respondent State, by the learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Council, Barnagar, nor by the learned counsel for the respondent/the Special Police Establishment before this Court establishing that the Chief Municipal Officer is competent to place an accountant under suspension, nor it has been demonstrated before this Court while arguing the matter that the Chief Municipal Officer is empowered to pass the impugned order. Resultantly, as the order of suspension has been passed by an authority not having the jurisdiction to do so, the impugned order has to pave the path of examination. The impugned order dt. 25.7.2011 is accordingly quashed. Resultantly, as the order of suspension has been passed by an authority not having the jurisdiction to do so, the impugned order has to pave the path of examination. The impugned order dt. 25.7.2011 is accordingly quashed. However, the competent authority shall be at a liberty to pass a fresh order of suspension in accordance with law.