Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 563 (MP)

Manoj Kumar Jaitwar v. State of M. P.

2018-06-27

SANJAY DWIVEDI

body2018
ORDER 1. Although learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press the relief in respect of order of punishment dated 4.1.2017 i.e. Annexure-P-4, but seeks liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the punishment order dated 16.1.2017 (Annexure-P-5). 2. Liberty is granted. 3. The matter is heard finally on the point of order of suspension. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is assailing the order of suspension on sole ground that the same has been passed under rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, whereas the petitioner's services are governed with the M.P. Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, and there is specific provision available under the said Rules, therefore, the order impugned dated 16.1.2017 (Annexure-P-5) is said to be illegal, passed under wrong provision and, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. The respondents have submitted their reply stating therein that the authority while issuing the order under misconception quoted the wrong provision but that does not make the order invalid and merely quoting a wrong provision does not vitiate the order. 6. The State has contended that the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Seoni, had issued the order impugned, was the competent authority and as such he has issued the fresh order rectifying the mistake quoting the proper provision and said order has been filed along with the reply as Annexure-R-2. The respondents, therefore, supported their contentions saying that in pursuant to the subsequent development taken place, the amended order Annexure-R-2 has been issued, therefore, nothing remains in the present petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and I am of the considered opinion that the stand taken by the respondent-State is proper because if wrong provision is mentioned, that does not make the order invalid. Even otherwise, the amended order has been issued, therefore, nothing wrong exists in the present case. 8. The petitioner has also placed reliance in the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1487/2013 (Jugal Kishore Chouraisv. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) in which under the similar situation, the Division Bench has held the order invalid because the same had been issued by quoting wrong provision. 9. 8. The petitioner has also placed reliance in the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1487/2013 (Jugal Kishore Chouraisv. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) in which under the similar situation, the Division Bench has held the order invalid because the same had been issued by quoting wrong provision. 9. On a careful perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench, it is seen that the Division Bench has observed otherwise considering the situation had it been a fresh order issued by quoting the proper provision, then the situation would have been different. 10. Considering the observations made by the Division Bench, as in the present case, a fresh order has been issued by rectifying the mistake committed earlier, I find that there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner, therefore, the petition being misconceived, is hereby dismissed.