Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 402 (MP)

Baijanti Mehra (Jharia) (Smt. ) v. State of M. P.

2018-04-13

SUJOY PAUL

body2018
ORDER 1. The attack in this petition is the order dated 9.10.2017 whereby the petitioner, as Assistant Teacher Primary School, is placed under suspension. This order is called in question on the sole ground that the said order is passed by one Shri G.S. Dhurve, who is substantially holding the post of Additional Collector. The officiating charge of the post of CEO was given to him by the Collector Umariya on 25.9.2017 (Annexure P-6). Hence, the Officer, who is not substantively holding the post of CEO and performing officiating charge of the said post was incompetent to place the petitioner under suspension. 2. Shri Rahul Mishra opposed the same on the strength of Para 4 of the reply. 3. No other is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The respondent tried to justify the order by contending that the post of CEO can be filled up by IAS/State Administrative Service Officers as per Schedule II of the Rules of 1999. Shri Rahul Mishra argued that the said post of CEO can be filled up under the rules by way of deputation or transfer. 6. If the assignment of work of Shri G.S. Dhurve is examined in the teeth of document dated 25.9.2017 (Annexure P-6), it will be clear like noon day that said assignment was neither by way of transfer nor by of deputation under the Rules. Indeed, the officiating charge of the post of CEO was given to the said Shri Dhurve. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Girja Shankar Shukla v. Sub Divisional Officer and others [ 1973 JLJ 405 = 1973 MPLJ 411 ], held that a person holding the officiating charge cannot perform statutory function. The action of placing an employee under suspension is undoubtedly a statutory function. The respondent have not denied the fact that the order Annexure P-4 is passed by Shri G.S. Dhurve. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the suspension order cannot sustain judicial case of Girja Shankar Shukla (supra). 7. Resultantly, the suspension order dated 9.10.2017 is set aside. 8. Liberty is reserved to the respondent to pass fresh order in accordance with law. Petition is allowed.