JUDGMENT : This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 27-4-2007 passed by the respondent No. 5 in his capacity as incharge Chief Medical and Health Officer, Katni, as also the order dated 22-5-2008 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of penalty has been dismissed mainly on the ground of competence of respondent No. 5 to impose such a penalty of removal from service on the petitioner after departmental enquiry. 2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Superior Field Worker in the District Filaria Unit, Katni. He was subsequently promoted on the post of Insect Collector on 27-4-2005. It is the averment of the petitioner that except the impugned charge-sheet issued to him, no disciplinary action whatsoever was taken against him. He was diligently, efficiently and honestly discharging the duties. However, as soon as the respondent No. 5 was made incharge Chief Medical and Health Officer, the petitioner became an eyesore of the said respondent, who was putting pressure on the petitioner to do certain work. When the petitioner refused to carry out such orders, which according to the petitioner were illegal, he was threatened to dire consequences. The respondent No. 5 thereafter issued an order of suspension against the petitioner on 13-9-2006 and issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 9-10-2006. As many as 7 charges were levelled against the petitioner, which he denied. However, subsequently a supplementary charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by the same authority alleging three more charges on 23-12-2006. Surprisingly, the respondent No. 5 described himself as a witness against the alleged charges in the supplementary charge-sheet. A reply was submitted by the petitioner, which was not accepted and ultimately an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Enquiry was conducted in hasty manner and a report was drawn against the petitioner. 3. In the meanwhile since the complaints of the petitioner were not being looked into by the authorities of the Department, he made complaint before the Lokayukt and the Collector of the District but nothing was done. A show cause was issued to the petitioner along with the enquiry report calling his explanation alleging that certain charges were fully proved and certain charges were partially proved against the petitioner in the enquiry. A show cause was issued to the petitioner along with the enquiry report calling his explanation alleging that certain charges were fully proved and certain charges were partially proved against the petitioner in the enquiry. The petitioner was having no hope that he will get any justice in the hands of respondent No. 5 and despite all attempts since the petitioner was not granted any justice, on the other hand the order of penalty was issued against him, the petitioner was left with no option but to file an appeal and simultaneously approached this Court by way of filing W.P. No. 8440/2007 (S). However, as the appeal against the order of penalty was pending before respondent No. 3, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the authorities to decide the appeal against the order of penalty, vide order dated 13-7-2007. The said order was brought to the notice of the authorities but since respondent No. 3 has rejected the appeal of the petitioner without any cogent reason, ultimately the petitioner is required to file this writ petition before this Court. 4. Upon issuance of the notice of the writ petition, the respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed their return and have denied the allegations made in the petition. It is contended by the respondents that the enquiry was rightly conducted in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules')- Since the charges were found proved against the petitioner, the competent authority, i.e. respondent No. 4, has passed the order of punishment as prescribed under the Rules. It is contended that the petitioner is habitual in creating pressure upon the authorities by making false complaints and these facts were found proved in the enquiry. The respondent No. 5 was the competent authority to impose the penalty on the petitioner as he was holding current charge of the post of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Katni, at the relevant time. It is, thus, contended that entire petition is misconceived and based on misleading statements, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court has specifically ordered the respondents-authorities to produce the relevant enquiry record. However, the enquiry record despite demand has not been made available to this Court, though orally it was assured by learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents. 6. 5. This Court has specifically ordered the respondents-authorities to produce the relevant enquiry record. However, the enquiry record despite demand has not been made available to this Court, though orally it was assured by learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and examined the record. 7. As is vehemently contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner, substantive rank of respondent No. 5 at the relevant time was that of the Medical Specialist. He was not regularly promoted on the post of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Katni. This fact is not disputed by the respondents though they have tried to say that the respondent No. 5 was eligible to be appointed on the post of Chief Medical and Health Officer and was in fact given the current charge of the post. The fact remains that the respondent No. 5 was only holding the current charge of the post of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Katni at the relevant time. It is trite that only a person, who is given the regular appointment on the post of appointing authority of any employee, is authorized to exercise the statutory powers. No debate on this is required as the same has already been settled in view of the law laid-down by the Apex Court in several cases. On an occasion, this Court has examined the law in this respect and has given categorical findings in this respect. This issue came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Girija Shanker Shukla vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Harda and others, 1973 MPLJ (FB) 411 = 1973 JLJ 405 . Considering the law laid-down by the Apex Court in several cases, the Full Bench of this Court has held in paragraphs 16 and 17 as under : "16. The above cited decision of the Supreme Court clearly show that the authority of Ramratan's case, is in no way impaired; rather the view taken therein stands reinforced. However, that decision applies only to situations like those under Article 311(1) of the Constitution or the Defence of India Act or Rules where the delegate is named and further delegation is prohibited expressly or impliedly. In all such cases, emphasis is on rank, and the power can be exercised only by the holder of that rank. However, that decision applies only to situations like those under Article 311(1) of the Constitution or the Defence of India Act or Rules where the delegate is named and further delegation is prohibited expressly or impliedly. In all such cases, emphasis is on rank, and the power can be exercised only by the holder of that rank. However, there are other categories of cases, like the present, where emphasis is not on rank but only on the authority to discharge a certain function. In this latter class of cases, all that has to be examined is whether the person discharging the impugned function is so empowered or not, there being no prohibition, express or implied, against delegation and there being no such emphasis on rank. The category to which a case belongs will depend on the nature of the function and the context in which the power is given. Thus, in every case the purpose and nature of the function, the provision conferring power and the context or setting in which it appears, have all to be seen in order to determine whether the power can be exercised only by the holder of a particular rank and none else. 17. From the decisions of the Supreme Court it follows that a person appointed permanently or to officiate on a post holds that rank, whereas a person who is placed only in current charge of duties of a post does not hold that rank. Accordingly, those functions or powers of the post which depend on the rank cannot be discharged by a person who is placed only in current charge of the duties of that post." This makes it clear that/only the administrative functions are required to be discharged or the day to day work of the post is required to be discharged by an incumbent if he is posted on current charge of the said post. The statutory functions are required to be discharged by any such authority only when substantively a regular person is posted on the said post. Admittedly the respondent No. 5 was a specialist as was certified by the authorities under the Right to Information Act on 21-10-2008. It was categorically informed to the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 was a Specialist in Paediatrics posted in District Hospital, Katni and his salary was being drawn against the said post from District Hospital, Katni. Admittedly the respondent No. 5 was a specialist as was certified by the authorities under the Right to Information Act on 21-10-2008. It was categorically informed to the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 was a Specialist in Paediatrics posted in District Hospital, Katni and his salary was being drawn against the said post from District Hospital, Katni. However, he was made incharge Chief Medical and Health Officer of Katni. This being so, the respondent No. 5 was not authorized to exercise the functions as a Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner. This fact is further proved by the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority in the order passed in appeal filed by the petitioner. There was a circular issued by the State Government in Health and Family Welfare Department on 6-6-1998 reiterating the circular issued by the State Government way back. It was said that the officers, who are to be given the current charge of the post, are required to function in terms of the circular, which was issued by the General Administration Department of Govt. of Madhya Pradesh on 1st February, 1964. The State Government has categorically said that the officers, who have been given the current charge, are not required to discharge the statutory functions attached to the post on which they are simply discharging the duties on current charge. The circular of the State Government reads thus : "Copy of G.A.D. Memorandum No. 213/2475-1(iii)/63 dated 1st February, 1964 addressed to All Departments of Government etc. Sub :- Arrangement for holding current charge of the duties of a post by another officer during the absence of the regular incumbent of the post. Ref:-This Deptt.'s Memo No.170/-CR.175-1(iii)/61, dated the 5th July, 1961. In this department's Memorandum, referred to above, it was decided that an order appointing officer to held the current charge of the duties of another post should, in the absence of any specific directions to the contrary, be deemed to clothe the officer with all the powers vested in the full-fledged incumbent of the post, even though he may not get the full pay of the post. 2. The State Government has since been advised that the statutory functions attached to any designated post can be performed only by a person holding a post so designated and not by one appointed to hold current charge of the duties of that post. 2. The State Government has since been advised that the statutory functions attached to any designated post can be performed only by a person holding a post so designated and not by one appointed to hold current charge of the duties of that post. An officer appointed to perform the current duties of a post can exercise administrative or financial powers vested in the full-fledged incumbent such as are granted by administrative orders, officer memorandum and the like. He cannot however, exercise statutory powers whether those powers are derived direct from an Act of the Legislature or Rules, Regulations or Bye-Laws made under any article of the Constitution (e.g. Fundamental) Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services Regulations, Rules regarding delegation of Financial Powers etc.) 3. The above legal position may, in supersession of this department's memo under reference, please be borne in mind while appointing Government servants to hold current charge of the duties of posts, other than their own." These are the categorical averments made in the petition by the petitioner and the documents are also annexed in support of such averments, more particularly in paragraph 5.10 and 5.11 of the petition as also the grounds raised in the ground paras of the writ petition. 8. As against this, the return filed by the respondents nowhere meets out such allegations, specifically denying them nor the return of the State Government contains an averment that the circular issued by the State Government way back was superseded or replaced by any other circular. In absence of such a categorical statement, it has to be held that the allegations made by the petitioner are correct. Further, this Court has looked into this issue in W.P. No. 13590/2009 (S), Ramesh Kumar Pandey vs. State of M.P. and others, decided on 11-3-2011 and has specifically given the finding again based on the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Girija Shanker Shukla (supra) in the following manner : "In view of the foregoing discussions and on consideration of the provision of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 as well as the schedule of recruitment Rules of 1988 and the order Annexure R-1 whereby the additional charge have been given to Mr. Shriram Tiwari, in the opinion of this Court the power of the disciplinary authority has not been conferred on him, however, he is incompetent to issue the charge-sheet. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Charge-sheet Annexure P-1 dated 24th of July, 2009 issued by the incompetent person is hereby quashed, consequently no further action in the departmental enquiry proceeding may be taken. However, the respondents are at liberty to take further action in accordance with law." This being so, it is clear that the respondent No. 5 was not competent authority to initiate any departmental enquiry against the petitioner by issuance of the charge-sheet. Had it been a case that there is any delegation of power conferring any right or authority on the respondent No. 5 to initiate any proceeding under the Rules against the petitioner, the said document would have been filed by the respondents. In absence of such a document, it has to be inferred that there was no delegation of power in favour of respondent No. 5 to initiate any departmental enquiry against the petitioner and as such the charge-sheet itself is bad in law. One more aspect is required to be examined. If the respondent No. 5 was the complainant or a witness in the departmental enquiry, he should not have issued the charge-sheet to the petitioner. The facts relating to issuance of charge-sheet vide Annexures P-5 and P-l 1 are not disputed by the respondents. Therefore, it is clear that respondent No. 5 was not only incompetent authority to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner but he was having certain bias against the petitioner inasmuch as he included himself as a witness in the list of witnesses to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. The enquiry is bad on this count as well. These issues were raised before the respondent No. 3 in appeal but cursory without getting any information, the said issues have been decided against the petitioner, therefore, in fact the appeal of the petitioner was also not decided in appropriate manner. 9. In view of the above discussions, this writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned charge-sheet dated 9-10-2006 (Annexure P-5) and supplementary charge-sheet dated 23-12-2006 (Annexure P-11) as also the order impugned dated 17-4-2007 (Annexure P-1) and 22-5-2008 (Annexure P-2) are hereby quashed. The petitioner be reinstated in service immediately with all the consequential benefits. 9. In view of the above discussions, this writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned charge-sheet dated 9-10-2006 (Annexure P-5) and supplementary charge-sheet dated 23-12-2006 (Annexure P-11) as also the order impugned dated 17-4-2007 (Annexure P-1) and 22-5-2008 (Annexure P-2) are hereby quashed. The petitioner be reinstated in service immediately with all the consequential benefits. However, the respondents would be at liberty to initiate the departmental enquiry against the petitioner afresh, if any misconduct is said to have been committed by the petitioner, through a competent authority in accordance to law. 10. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.