B.L. Parmar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard.

Shri Singh submits that although the suspension order, Annexure P-1, is appealable under the rules, it needs to be interfered with because it is passed by the Commissioner, who has no jurisdiction. On more than one occasion, he argued that the Commissioner cannot pass the said order of suspension because he is not the appointing authority. Reliance is placed on 2007 (1) MPWN 2 (N.C. Gupta v. State of MP and others). By placing reliance on Head Note No. 1, which reads as under:-

(1) Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M.P.) -- Rr. 7 and 9 - suspension of Government servant - can be ordered only by appointing authority else it would be without jurisdiction.

It is urged that only appointing authority can place the petitioner under suspension. In addition, it is submitted that if any authority below the appointing authority has exercised such power, such authority needs to inform the appointing authority. Lastly, it is submitted that for a very minor allegation the petitioner is placed under suspension which runs contrary to Govt. Circular dated 13.1.2005.

Shri Devendra Choubey submits that the petitioner be relegated to avail appellate remedy.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

As per Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the employee can be placed under suspension by following authorities:-

(i) Appointing Authority,

(ii) Authority to which appointing authority is subordinate.

(iii) Disciplinary Authority, and

(iv) Any other authority, who is delegated to exercise such power by a general or special order of the Governor.

Despite repeated queries from the Bench, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any pleading, which includes all the aforesaid authorities. In other words, it is not pleaded and argued that Commissioner is not even disciplinary authority or the authority who is delegated with such power. The Head Note of N.C. Gupta (supra), is misleading. Nothing could be pointed out from the body of the judgment that it was held that only appointing authority can place the employee under suspension. Thus, the said judgment is of no assistance to the petitioner.

In the opinion of this Court, whenever it is argued that a particular authority has no competence, the minimum expectation is that there must be adequate pleading in this regard in the petition. Relevant material in support should also be filed. As noticed above, the employee can be placed under suspension by the disciplinary authority and an authority, who is equipped with such power pursuant to any general or special order.

The petitioner has not pleaded that the respondent No. 2 does not fall within the ambit of later authorities described in Rule 9(1) of the CCA Rules. Thus, minimum requirement is not fulfilled by the petitioner.

The question whether petitioner is rightly placed under suspension or not needs to be decided by the competent appellate authority. In absence of minimum essential pleading and material to show that the respondent No. 2 is not the competent authority, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. The petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal.

Petition is not entertained by reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the said remedy. If appeal is preferred within 15 days from today, the appellate authority shall consider and decide it in accordance with law within thirty days.

Petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits.