Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1236 (MP)

Sanjay Shivhare v. State of M. P.

2013-10-11

G.D.SAXENA, S.K.GANGELE

body2013
JUDGMENT This appeal is listed for admission, however, the counsel for the respondents/State appeared on advance notice, hence with the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard and disposed of finally. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dt. 18.9.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 4922/2013. 2. The appellant challenged the order of suspension before the Writ Court. He pleaded that the Chief Executive Officer had no power and authority to pass the order of suspension. 3. The appellant was appointed on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade I by District Panchayat Morena. He was sent on deputation as Block Resource Centre Coordinator. Prior to deputation, he applied to the post and the Block Level Selection Committee consisting the Collector as President and other nine members interviewed the appellant and thereafter his services had been taken on deputation for maximum period of two years on the post of Block Resource Centre Coordinator. The order was passed by the Collector/Mission Director, District Morena. A copy of the order was filed as Annexure P/4 before the Writ Court. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant that he had not paid salary to the teachers and employees within time and he did not make entry in CPSMS, child tracking, VER, hence, he had contravened the provisions of Right to Education Act, 2009. The appellant submitted his reply. Thereafter, Chief Executive Officer/District Project Director, District Education Centre, Morena suspended the appellant vide order dt. 12.7.2013. The appellant challenged the order before the Writ Court on the ground that the Chief Executive Officer/District Project Director, District Education Centre, Morena had no power and authority to place the appellant under suspension, hence, the order of suspension is without jurisdiction. 4. The Writ Court dismissed the Writ Petition by observing that the District Project Director is the head of District Education Centre and Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat is the same person. Hence, he exercised the powers of District Project Officer consequently. He was competent to place the appellant under suspension in accordance with Rule 11 of the Madhya Pradesh, Panchayat Service (Discipline & appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1999'). 5. Hence, he exercised the powers of District Project Officer consequently. He was competent to place the appellant under suspension in accordance with Rule 11 of the Madhya Pradesh, Panchayat Service (Discipline & appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1999'). 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Collector/Mission Director is the competent authority to place the appellant under suspension and the Chief Executive Officer is not competent to place the appellant under suspension. 6. The appellant was taken on deputation on the post of Block Resource Centre Coordinator at District Education Centre, District Morena. For the aforesaid purpose the District Level Appointment Committee was constituted consisting following members: XXX XXX XXX 7. The Collector/District Mission Director was the President of the Committee. The order of taking services of appellant on deputation was issued by the Collector/Mission Director, District Education Centre, Morena on 25.1.2012. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the Collector/District Mission Director is the competent authority to place the appellant udder suspension in view of Rule 11 of Rules of 1999. The aforesaid rule is as under:- “11. Provisions regarding Panchayat Servants lent to Government etc. (1) Where the services of a Panchayat Servant are lent to any Government in India or to an authority subordinate thereto or to a local or other authority (hereinafter in this rule referred to as "the borrowing authority") the borrowing authority shall have the powers of the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of placing him under suspension and for initiating a disciplinary proceeding against him: Provided that the borrowing authority, shall forthwith inform the Chief Executive Officer of the circumstances leading to the order of his suspension or the commencement of the disciplinary proceeding as the case may be. 8. In accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules of 1999 the borrowing authority shall have the power of the disciplinary authority for the purpose of placing the employee under suspension and for initiating the disciplinary proceeding against him. 9. In the present case, the Collector is the borrowing authority because the order of taking services of the appellant on deputation was passed by the Collector/Mission Director and he was also head of the District Level Appointment Committee. The District Project Director/Chief Executive Officer was only a Member of the Committee. 9. In the present case, the Collector is the borrowing authority because the order of taking services of the appellant on deputation was passed by the Collector/Mission Director and he was also head of the District Level Appointment Committee. The District Project Director/Chief Executive Officer was only a Member of the Committee. Hence, in our opinion the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the District Project Director/Chief Executive Officer is the competent authority to place the appellant under suspension is contrary to law. 10. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single judge is hereby set aside. The impugned order of suspension dt. 12.7.2013 (Annexure P/1 in the Writ Petition) is hereby quashed. It is hereby clarified that this court has not opined about the merits of the suspension of the appellant and the competent authority is at liberty to place the appellant under suspension if it is necessary or required in accordance with the facts of the case. No order as to costs.