Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 439 (MP)

Devendra Singh Kirar v. State of M. P.

2014-04-22

SUJOY PAUL

body2014
ORDER 1. Since the common question of law is involved in these matters, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order. 2. The core issue needs to be decided in this matter is whether the petitioners, Panchayat Secretaries, can be placed under suspension by the Collector ? 3. It is the common ground raised by the petitioners that the petitioners are Panchayat Secretary, whose service conditions are governed by Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011. As per these rules, the appointing authority of the petitioners is Chief Executive Officer. The petitioners are already absorbed as per these 2011 Rules. Thus, as per M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for brevity, the “D&A Rules”), the Collector is not competent to place the petitioner under suspension. 4. Shri D.P.Singh and Shri D.S.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, placed reliance on the definition of “appointing authority” in 2011 Rules. It reads as under :- “Appointing Authority” with respect to Gram Panchayat Secretary means the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat”. 5. The attention is also drawn on the Schedule appended to these Rules to bolster the submission that under these rules the appointing authority is Chief Executive Officer and, therefore, the Collector has no authority, jurisdiction and competence to place the petitioners under suspension. 6. Per Contra, the stand of the State is that the order is passed by the competent authority. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The Panchayat Secretary is appointed under section 69 of the Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity, the “Adhiniyam”). It is not in dispute that in the present case the petitioners were appointed by the Collector under section 69 of the Adhiniyam. Whether or not, the petitioners were appointed by the Collector, the fact remains that the Collector continues to be the appointing authority of the Panchayat Secretary. section 69, in clear terms, shows that the State Government or the Prescribed Authority may appoint a Secretary in a Gram Panchayat. The Prescribed Authority for the purpose of relevant section is appointed by way of notification. Item 35 of this notification ( Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, page 177-179) shows that the Collector is the “Prescribed Authority”. 9. Subsequently 2011 Rules came into being. Chief Executive Officer is shown as appointing authority. The Prescribed Authority for the purpose of relevant section is appointed by way of notification. Item 35 of this notification ( Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, page 177-179) shows that the Collector is the “Prescribed Authority”. 9. Subsequently 2011 Rules came into being. Chief Executive Officer is shown as appointing authority. However, it is important to note here that section 69 is still in the Statute Book. Thus, the basic enabling provision to appoint Panchayat Secretary by the Collector is not taken away or deleted. In addition, by Rules Chief Executive Officer is declared as appointing authority. The Rules are framed under the Adhiniyam and are in aid to the Adhiniyam. Thus, under the Adhiniyam Collector continues to be the appointing authority. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in 2009(2) JLJ 432 = 2009 (2) MPHT 372 (Kamlesh Dubey v. State of MP) opined that as per section 69 (1) of the Adhiniyam, the Collector is the appointing authority of the Panchayat Secretary. This Court opined that as per rule 4 of D and A Rules, the Collector was empowered to suspend the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary and not from the post of Panchayatkarmi. Rule 4 of D and A Rules makes it clear that the disciplinary authority or the appointing authority can place the petitioner under suspension. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the Collector being the appointing authority is empowered to place the petitioner under suspension. 11. Shri D.S.Raghuvanshi also argued on merits. It is contended that the petitioner is placed under suspension on incorrect grounds. In the opinion of this Court, the correctness of allegations cannot be gone into at this stage. The suspension is not a punishment. Correctness of allegations will be gone into in the disciplinary proceedings by the enquiry officer. At this stage, there is no occasion for this Court to examine the correctness of the allegations. A Panchayat Secretary can be placed under suspension during pendency of an investigation, enquiry or trial. The only thing which needs to be examined at this stage is whether the conditions/ingredients for placing the petitioner under suspension are satisfied. Since the respondents intended to conduct a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the order of suspension is beyond the powers available to the appointing authority under the D and A Rules. The only thing which needs to be examined at this stage is whether the conditions/ingredients for placing the petitioner under suspension are satisfied. Since the respondents intended to conduct a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the order of suspension is beyond the powers available to the appointing authority under the D and A Rules. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the suspension order. 12. Petitions have no substance and are hereby dismissed. No costs.