Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 353 (MP)

K. L. Patta v. State of M. P.

2025-06-18

VIVEK JAIN

body2025
ORDER 1. The present petition has put to challenge the Order Annexure P-1 dated 3.8.2021 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rewa under approval of the Collector whereby the petitioner working as Sub Engineer in Janpad Pachayat has been placed under suspension. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after suspension of the petitioner in the year 2021, almost four years have passed and neither any progress is there in the Departmental Enquiry nor the suspension has been revoked and the petitioner continues to be under suspension. Competence of the Chief Executive Officer to place the petitioner under suspension is also criticized. 3. Per contra, the Order is supported by learned counsel for the State. 4. Taking up the question of competence of the Chief Executive Officer, an Order dated 7.8.2009 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6938/2009 was relied by the petitioner. However, the said Order is on the ground of incompetence of Collector who for one day was given the current charge of Commissioner and had exercised powers against Class II Officers for which Commissioner only was authorized. Even otherwise, the said Order does not take into consideration the notification of the State Govt. dated 3.3.2000. 5. Vide notification issued by the State Govt. by exercising powers under rule 9, Rule 12(2) and rule 24 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules, 1976, the State Govt. has issued notification dated 3.3.2000 which is as under:- "2. Notfn. No. C-6-9 (A)-99-3-Ek, dated 21-2-2000, Pub. in M.P. Rajpatra, Pt. dated 3.3.2000. 5. Vide notification issued by the State Govt. by exercising powers under rule 9, Rule 12(2) and rule 24 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules, 1976, the State Govt. has issued notification dated 3.3.2000 which is as under:- "2. Notfn. No. C-6-9 (A)-99-3-Ek, dated 21-2-2000, Pub. in M.P. Rajpatra, Pt. 1, 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 powers 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 Scheduled 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." 6. By force of the said notification, the Chief Executive Officer of Jila Panchayat has the power and authority to suspend or impose minor penalties in respect of such Class III and Class IV Govt. Servants whose services have been placed under control of Panchayats and who are employees of SC and ST Welfare, Agriculture, Panchayat and Rural Development, Veterinary Departments, etc. as mentioned in the said notification, Therefore, in terms of the said notification dated 3.3.2000, the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat is duly authorized and competent to place the petitioner under suspension. 7. Therefore, this ground of the petitioner is discarded. So far as the continued suspension of the Petitioner for four years is concerned, the petition has some force to that extent. 7. Therefore, this ground of the petitioner is discarded. So far as the continued suspension of the Petitioner for four years is concerned, the petition has some force to that extent. Once there is no progress in the Departmental Enquiry, then keeping the employee under suspension for such a long period damages the State Govt. on one hand because it has to pay 75% salary as subsistence allowance and on the other hand, the State Govt. is deprived of the services of the Govt. Servant. 8. For this reason, the General Administration Department of the State has issued instructions from time to time which are dated 28.1.2013, 30.9.2015 and 9.4.2019. Therefore, in the light of the said Circulars, it was obligatory upon the respondents to have reviewed the justifiability of continued suspension of the petitioner after one year of the petitioner being placed under suspension. It appears that such exercise has not been undertaken by the respondents till date. 9. Therefore, while rejecting the challenge to Annexure P-1, the respondents No.2 to 4 are directed to carry out review of continued suspension of the petitioner in the light of aforesaid Circulars of the GAD in terms of the parameters as laid down in the said Circulars and necessary action be taken expeditiously, not later than one month from the date of production of certified copy this Order. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed off.