JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner who is working as Medical Specialist has challenged the charge sheet dated 21/10/2010 issued by the Commissioner under Rule 14(3) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The petitioner is also aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner dated 10/7/2012 whereby the Commissioner had appointed the enquiry officer and presenting officer. 3. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is a Class I employee working as Medical Specialist posted at Chief Medical and Health Officer, therefore, Commissioner is not competent to issue the charge sheet. 4. As against this, learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned orders. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the issue involved in the present case is already settled by this court in the matter of Dr.(Ms.) Savita Yadav Vs. State of MP & Ors. 2015 MPLJ 652 wherein it has been held that:- '9. In terms of the Rule 12(2) any penalty, either minor or major, can be imposed by the appointing authority or the authorities specified in schedule or any other authority empowered by the general or special order of the Governor. The Governor by order dated 13th August 1997 exercising the power under Rule 12 (a) & (b) has issued the following order empowering all the Divisional Commissioners of the State to impose the minor penalties under Rule 10 on Class-I & Class-II Officers (except of the officers of the Judicial Services and the Police Department) of the State Government posted within their respective divisions:- ' No. C-6-5-97-3-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, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh hereby, empowers all Divisional Commissioners of the State to impose the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 of the said rules on Class I and Class II officers (except of the officers of the Judicial Services and the police department) of the State Government posted within their respective divisions." 10. The position has further been clarified by subsequent order of Governor under the above Rules published in the gazette dated 15th September 2008 empowering all the Divisional Commissioners of the State to take disciplinary action and impose minor penalties, which reads as under:- 'Bhopal, the 15th September 2008 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 and to impose the penalties specified in clause (I) to (IV) of Rule 10 of said rules on Class I and Class II Government servants (except the officers of the Judicial services, police department and posted in non-governmental Institutions/Organizations/Undertakings) of the State Government posted within their respective divisions. By order and in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh AQUEELA HASHMAT, Dy. Secy." 11. In terms of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India, no member of the State Civil Service or holder of the civil post can be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, but Article 311(1) of the Constitution does not provide that even the departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the appointing authority. If there is no Rule providing for initiation of the departmental proceeding by the appointing authority, then any superior controlling authority can initiate departmental proceeding. Hence initiation and conducting of departmental proceeding can be by any superior controlling authority in addition to the authority competent to impose penalty, if the relevant service Rules do not prohibit the same (See: P.V. Srinivasa Sastry and others Vs. Comptroller and Auditor General and others , reported in (1993)1 SCC 419 , Inspector General of Police and another Vs. Thavasiappan, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 145 & State of UP and another Vs. Chandrapal Singh and another , reported in (2003) 4 SCC 670 ). 12. Comptroller and Auditor General and others , reported in (1993)1 SCC 419 , Inspector General of Police and another Vs. Thavasiappan, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 145 & State of UP and another Vs. Chandrapal Singh and another , reported in (2003) 4 SCC 670 ). 12. A conjoint reading of the Rules of 1966 with the orders of Governor dated 13th August, 1997 and 15th September, 2008 make it clear that the State Government is competent to impose any penalty either minor or major to the petitioner and the Commissioner is competent to take disciplinary action and to impose minor penalty on the petitioner who is a class-I employee. No Rule has been pointed out by counsel for petitioner prohibiting the superior controlling authority other than the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority from initiation of the departmental enquiry and the conducting the same. Thus, the Commissioner is competent to initiate and conduct the departmental enquiry against the class I and II government employee for imposing minor or major penalty and he can also impose minor penalty but as required by Rule 12(3)(a) major penalty provided in Rule 10 (v) to (ix) cannot be imposed by the Commissioner since he is subordinate to the appointing authority. In such a case the commissioner is required to take recourse to Sub Rule 21 of Rule 14 under which the Commissioner, after concluding the enquiry if finds it to be a case of imposition of major penalty, has to forward the record to the State Government/disciplinary authority competent to impose major penalty for appropriate decision. Rule 14(21) reads as under: '(21(a) Where a disciplinary authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 10, (but not competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 10), has itself inquired into or the articles of any charge and that authority, having regard to its own finding or having regard to its decision on any of the findings of any inquiring authority appointed by it, is of opinion that the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 10 should be imposed on the Government servant, that authority shall forward the records of the inquiry to such disciplinary authority as is competent to impose the last mentioned penalties. (b) The disciplinary authority to which the records are so forwarded may act on the evidence on the record or may, if it is of the opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses if necessary in the interests of justice, recall the witness and examine, crossexamine and re-examine the witness and may impose on the Government servant such penalty as it may deem fit in accordance with these rules." 13. Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme court in the matter of Union of India and others Vs. B.V. Gopinath reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351 , wherein the Supreme court explaining the expression of 'shall cause to be drawn up' in Rule 14(3) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Central and Appeal) Rules, 1965 has held that it permits the disciplinary authority to delegate to subordinate authority task of drawing up substance of proposed definite and distinct articles of charge-sheet only, but it does not provide for delegation of power of approval to proposed charge-sheet, and therefore, in that case in absence of the approval of disciplinary authority (FM) charge sheet was found to be non est but in the present case, the Commissioner who has issued the charge sheet is the competent authority in terms of Rule 12 and in terms of orders of Governor dated 13/8/97 and 15/9/2008. 14. Counsel for petitioner referring to order of the Governor dated 13/8/97 has submitted that power to take disciplinary action and initiating enquiry cannot be sub delegate to the Commissioner but the orders of Governor dated 13th August, 1997 and 15 September 2008 are not orders of sub-delegation but these are the orders passed by the Governor exercising power under Rule 12 (2)(a) & (b) of Rules, 1966 which empowers the Governor to authorise any authority to impose any of the minor penalty under Rule 10. 15. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the charge sheet which has been issued by the Commissioner to the petitioner is by the competent authority and issuance of the charge sheet cannot be faulted on that ground." 6. The aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the division bench by order dated 27/1/2016 passed in WA No.322/2015. 7. The aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the division bench by order dated 27/1/2016 passed in WA No.322/2015. 7. In view of the above pronouncements, I am of the opinion that the Commissioner was competent to issue the charge sheet and appoint the enquiry and presenting officer. 8. Thus, no merit is found in the present writ petition which is accordingly dismissed .