Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 648 (MP)

Neelophar Khan v. Secretary the State of M. P.

2011-06-20

SANJAY YADAV

body2011
JUDGMENT : With consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 05/07-03-2011 passed by respondent No. 3/Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat- Mohgaon, tahsil and district-Mandla, whereby services of the petitioner, who was employed Typist on contract basis, have been dispensed with. Facts briefly are that, the petitioner in response to the policy of the State Government, appointed as Typist in Janpad Panchayat Mohgaon, tahsil and district Mandla, by order dated 03-02-2001 (Annexure-P/2). Contention of the petitioner is that despite of rendering satisfactory services, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with by order dated 05/07-03-2011 passed by Shri V. K. Sharma, the then Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mohgaon. It is urged that the said Chief Executive Officer, who was placed under suspension vide order dated 04-03-2011, passed the order of termination with an ulterior motive and without any authority. To substantiate the submission regarding suspension of said Shri V. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order dated 07-03-2011 passed by Collector, Mandla wherein it is indicated that said Shri V. K. Sharma, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mohgaon, was suspended by order dated 04-03-2011 passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. On 18-04-2011 the respondents were directed to show cause. In response whereof return is filed by respondent No. 3 wherein it contended that the appointment of petitioner as Typist was not in accordance with the procedure. It is stated in the return that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on the basis of the report furnished by Audit Committee. Be that as it may. The question which crops up for consideration is as to whether said Shri V. K. Sharma, the then Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mohgaon, who was under suspension could have terminated the services of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 when faced with the aforesaid proposition, candidly submits that an officer who is placed under suspension loses an authority to take administrative decision. In the case at hand, the documents on record reveal that said Shri V. K. Sharma while he was discharging his duties as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mohgaon, was placed under suspension by an order passed by the Commissioner bearing No. 335/l-v-pkj/2011 Jabalpur, dated 04-03-2011. In the case at hand, the documents on record reveal that said Shri V. K. Sharma while he was discharging his duties as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mohgaon, was placed under suspension by an order passed by the Commissioner bearing No. 335/l-v-pkj/2011 Jabalpur, dated 04-03-2011. Thus, from the date of his suspension he lost the authority to pass any administrative order. Whereas contrary to this by order dated 05/07-03-2011 (Annexure-P/1) he terminated the services of the petitioner which on the face of it is without any authority. Since the impugned order is not passed by a Competent Authority, it is non-est in the eyes of law and has no legal force. In view whereof, the impugned order dated 05/07-03-2011 so far as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post on which she was appointed and engaged as Typist. It will, however, be within the powers of the respondents/Janpad Panchayat to take recourse to law in case the services of the petitioner are no more required due to financial crisis or any other lawful reasons. The petition is allowed to the extent above. However, no costs.