Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 558 (MP)

Ashok Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2016-07-14

ROHIT ARYA

body2016
ORDER : Rohit Arya, J. 1. Petitioner though substantively appointed as Assistant Grade-III is working under the administrative control of the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Shahdol by virtue of order dated 27.4.2016 (Annexure P-4) which itself speaks of the fact that the petitioner’s services are be utilised by the Zila Panchayat, Shahdol by virtue of attachment thereto. 2. Petitioner has been under the administrative control of the Chief Executive Officer under Rule 9(1)(a) of M.P. Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal), Rules 1966. By taking exception to the impugned order it is contended that the C.E.O. has no jurisdiction to pass the order of suspension under Rule 9 of the Rules 1966. It is submitted that the petitioner’s appointing authority is the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Shahdol, therefore, order suffers from vice of corum non-Judice. 3. Per contra, Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Government Advocate on advance copy contends that the petitioner’s services are under the administrative and supervisory control of Zila Panchayat, Shahdol. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Pnachayat Shahdol is superior authority to the Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department. Petitioner has been proceeded under the service Rules applicable to him and, therefore, the suspension order passed under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1966 by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be said to be suffering from the vice of corum non-judice. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order is well within jurisdiction. Rule 9 of the Rules 1966 provides that the appointing authority or any authority notify with the Governor under Rule 9(1) to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension. “(1) The State Government has delegated powers to Collectors to exercise powers under Rule 9 to suspend and under Rule 10 to impose minor penalty on all the employees of Class III and Class IV of all the departments (except Police workers), posted in their District, with effect from 23rd May, 1996. Vide Notification No.C-6-7-96-3-I, dated 23rd May, 1996, Published in M.P. Rajpatra (Ext.), dated 10.1.1997, page, 53. 2. Notification No. C-6-9(A)-99-3-Ek, dated 21.2.2000, Published in M.P. Rajpatra, Pt. Vide Notification No.C-6-7-96-3-I, dated 23rd May, 1996, Published in M.P. Rajpatra (Ext.), dated 10.1.1997, page, 53. 2. Notification No. C-6-9(A)-99-3-Ek, dated 21.2.2000, Published in M.P. Rajpatra, Pt. I, dated 3.3.2000, p.476:- Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, and in exercise of the posers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 and Rule 24 of the said rules, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, hereby empowers the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Zila Panchayat to suspend or to impose minor penalties as are specified in clause (i) to clause (iv) of Rule 10 of the said rules, in respect of such class III and class IV Government servants of the department of the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare, Agriculture, Panchayat and Rural Development, Veterinary, Fisheries, Women and Child Development, Public Health and Family Welfare, Medical Education, School Education, Social Welfare and Rural Industries whose services have been placed by the State Government under the control of Panchayats under the provisions of clause (xii) of sub-section (1) of section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (No.1 of 1994) and such Government servant may prefer an appeal against the order of the Chief Executive Officer to the head of the concerned department. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents also refers to notification issued by the State Government and submits that in view of the aforesaid notification the C.E.O. is competent authority to place the class III and IV employees under suspension working with the Panchayat. Admittedly, petitioner is a Class III employee, therefore, C.E.O. Is competent to exercise the power of suspension under Rule 9 of the Rules 1966. 5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the Class III employee working as Assistant Grade I I I with the Zila Panchayat, Shahdol over which the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat, Shahdol has jurisdiction to exercise the disciplinary control. Under such circumstances, in view of the circular of the State Government in the opinion of this Court the C.E.O. was competent to pass the order impugned . Hence, the contention that the order suffers from the vice of corum non-judice is found to be devoid of substance. Accordingly, writ petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.