Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 428 (MP)

Mahesh Kumar Rahora v. State of M. P.

2015-04-15

SUJOY PAUL

body2015
ORDER 1. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the common order dated 26.3.2013 whereby the Additional Chief Executive Officer/District Education Officer has placed the petitioner under suspension as per the order of the Collector. 2. Shri D.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, criticized this order by contending that petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi thereafter they became Samvida Shala Shikshak. Subsequently they were absorbed as Varishtha Adhyapak in respondent- municipality. The municipal employees can be placed under suspension under statutory rules which are known as M.P. Municipal Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Services Rules, 1968 (1968 Rules). By taking this Court to rule 53 of said Rules, it is contended that it is only disciplinary authority who can place the petitioners under suspension, if conditions for placing the petitioners mentioned in the said rules are satisfied. It is contended that Annexure R-1(Madhya Pradesh Nagriya Nikai Adhyapak Samvarg (Niyojan Evam Seva Ki Sharten), Niyam, 2008 (2008 Rules) makes it clear that for Varishtha Adhayapak Collector is appellate authority. Accordingly, as per rule 53 aforesaid, Collector has no authority, jurisdiction and competence to place the petitioners under suspension. It is further contended that respondents have erred in relying on M.P. Panchayat Service (Conduct) Rules, 1998. The said rules have no application on the petitioners/municipal employees. 3. Shri Praveen Newaskar, Deputy Government Advocate for the State did not dispute that the petitioners on absorption became employee of the Municipality. However, he supported the order on the basis of Rules, 2008. By taking this Court to rule 8 of said Rules, it is contended that Collector is competent to place the petitioners under suspension. He fairly admits that in the impugned order, Panchayat conduct Rules are wrongly relied upon. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. A plain reading of rule 8 of 2008 rules makes it clear that District Collector is appellate authority for the petitioners/Varishtha Adhayapak. It reads as under:- **8- vU; 'krs± & d bu fu;eksa ds v/khu fu;ksftr dksbZ O;fDr] uxjh; fudk; ds iz'kkldh; rFkk vuq'kkldh; fu;a=.k ds v/khu vius drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu djsxk ? 5. A plain reading of rule 8 of 2008 rules makes it clear that District Collector is appellate authority for the petitioners/Varishtha Adhayapak. It reads as under:- **8- vU; 'krs± & d bu fu;eksa ds v/khu fu;ksftr dksbZ O;fDr] uxjh; fudk; ds iz'kkldh; rFkk vuq'kkldh; fu;a=.k ds v/khu vius drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu djsxk ? v/;kid laoxZ ds fy, vuq'kklukRed izkf/kdkjh fuEukuqlkj gksaxsA vuqØekad v/;kid laoxZ vuq'kklukRed izkf/kdkjh vihyh; izkf/kdkjh 1 2 3 4 1- ofj"B v/;kid ;FkkfLFkfr] fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh ftyk dyDVj ftyk f'k{kk vf/kdkjh] Ldwy f'k{kk@lgk;d vk;qDr] vkfne tkfr dY;k.k foHkkx Rule 53 (1) of 1968 Rules reads as under :- “53. Suspension pending disciplinary proceeding :- (1) If having regard to the nature of the charges and the circumstances in any case, the disciplinary authority which initiates any disciplinary proceeding is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place under suspension a municipal employee against whom such proceedings are started, it may pass an order place him under suspension.” 6. A bare perusal of rule 53(1) of 1968 Rules makes it clear that it is the disciplinary authority who can place the petitioners/Municipal employees under suspension provided conditions mentioned in the said Rules are satisfied. Thus, I find substantial force in the argument of Shri Singh that Collector does not have authority to place the petitioners under suspension. Since the petitioners have challenge the suspension order on the ground of authority/competence, in my view, it will not be proper to relegate the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal provided under the Rules. 7. As analyzed above, Collector is an appellate authority and therefore, under the scheme of 1968 Rules, he was not competent to place the petitioner under suspension. Resultantly, the suspension order to the extent it relates to the petitioners is set aside. This order will not come in the way of competent authority to take appropriate steps against the petitioners. 8. Petitions are allowed. No costs.