Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 342 (MP)

Hyjinus Kerketta v. State of M. P.

2016-04-27

SANJAY YADAV

body2016
ORDER 1. Competency of Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa in suspending the Petitioner, Principal Higher Secondary School, Singrauli and issuing the charge sheet is the issue raised in these two writ petitions. 2. In Writ Petition No.6546/2015 the challenge is to an order of suspension dated 24.4.2015 (Annexure P-3), which as evident therefrom is passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, in exercise of powers under rule 9 (1) of M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Whereas in Writ Petition No.7975/2015 the challenge is to an initiation of departmental enquiry by issuing charge-sheet on 19.5.2015. 3. Since competency of Commissioner, in suspending and issuing charge-sheet has been questioned on the ground that he is not an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority or a competent authority conferred with the powers to suspend or initiate a departmental enquiry, we straight away go to relevant provisions, viz., rule 9(1) and rule 13 of Rules 1966. Sub-rule (1) rule 9 envisages : “(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is sub-ordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or special order may place a Government servant under suspension :- (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against his is contemplated or is pending, or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under in ventilation, inquiry or trial.” 4. Thus following class of Authority can place a Government servant under suspension viz.:- (i) Appointing Authority (ii) Any authority to which Appointing Authority is sub-ordinate (iii) the Disciplinary Authority and (iv) Any other Authority empowered in that behalf of the Governor by general or special order. 5. Rule 13 of 1966 rules provides for authority who can initiate Disciplinary proceedings : “13. Authority to institute proceedings. (1) The Governor or any other authority empowered by him general or special order may :- (a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant; (b) direct a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant on whom that disciplinary authority is competent to impose under these rules any of the penalties specified in rule 10. (1) The Governor or any other authority empowered by him general or special order may :- (a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant; (b) direct a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant on whom that disciplinary authority is competent to impose under these rules any of the penalties specified in rule 10. (2) A disciplinary authority competent under these rules to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (I) to (iv) of rule 10 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 10 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent under these rules to impose any of the latter penalties.” 6. Further more, rule 12 of 1966 Rules makes a provision as to who could be a disciplinary authority. That clause (a) and (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 12, which is relevant in the context stipulates : “12. Disciplinary authorities- (1) The Government may impose any of the penalties specified in rule 10 on any Government servant. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (1), but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), any of the penalties specified in rule 10 may be imposed on : - (a) a member of State Civil Service by the appointing authority or the authority specified in the Schedule in this behalf by a general or special order of the Governor. (b) a person appointed to a State Civil post by the authority specified in this behalf by a general or special order of the Governor, or by the appointing authority or the authority specified in the Schedule in this behalf.” 7. Thus any authority empowered by a general or special order of the Governor becomes a disciplinary authority under rule 12 of 1966 Rules. 8. Thus any authority empowered by a general or special order of the Governor becomes a disciplinary authority under rule 12 of 1966 Rules. 8. In the present case notification No.C-6-1-2008-3-I dated 15.9.2008 published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 18.9.2008 has been referred to by the State Government which is in the following terms : “No.C-6-1-2008-3-I – In pursuance of clause (a) and (b) of sub-rule(2) of rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and in supersession of this Department's Notification No.C-6-5-97-3-I dated 1st January, 2002 the Governor of Madhya Pradesh hereby empowers all Divisional Commissioners of the State to take disciplinary action to impose the penalties specified in clause (I) to (IV) of rule 10 of the said rules on Class-I and Class-II Government servants (except the officers of the Judicial service, police department and posted in Non-Governmental Institution/Organization/Undertakings) of the State Government posted within their respective divisions.” 9. Perusal of this notification which is under rule 12(2) (a), (b) of 1966 Rules empowers the Divisional Commissioner of the State to take disciplinary action and to impose the penalties specified in Clause (I) to (IV) of rule 10 of Rules 1966 or, Class-I and Class-II Government Servant. 10. This notification clinches the issue raised in the present petition that the Divisional Commissioner being a disciplinary authority is competent to not only suspend the petitioner but also to initiate departmental enquiry and issue charge sheet. 11. Contention on behalf of the petitioner that the Commissioner can only issue charge-sheet as to penalties specified in Clause (I) to (IV) of rule 10 is taken note of and rejected outright. Because being empowered to initiate a disciplinary action it is within the power to issue charge-sheet, including major penalty charge-sheet; though he may have no power to impose major penalties specified in clause (v) to (xi). The two are different acts, i.e., initiation of disciplinary action and imposing penalty. 12. In view whereof, no interference is caused. Petitions fail and are dismissed. Interim orders in both the petitions stands vacated. No costs N. S. Ruprah for petitioner; Ms. D. K. Bohre, Government Advocate for respondent/State; Vijay Shukla for intervener.