Mukesh Chaudhary vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, Judge

With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.3.2012 whereby the Collector, Shivpuri has directed the Sub Divisional Officer to place the petitioner under suspension and lodge FIR against him. The consequential order dated 29.3.2012 of SDO suspending the petitioner is also under challenge.

The singular ground on which it is assailed is that the SDO is competent authority under Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 to place the petitioner under suspension. Collector is appellate authority and the said authority should not have directed the competent authority to place the petitioner under suspension. Shri D.P. Singh submits that the said order passed under the dictate runs contrary to the provisions of C.C.A. Rules aforesaid.

Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Deputy Government Advocate, per contra, submits that the Collector is also competent authority to place the petitioner under suspension under Rule 9 of the C.C.A. Rules.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

No doubt that under Rule 9 of the C.C.A. Rules aforesaid, the following authorities are competent to place an employee under suspension.

(i) Disciplinary authority.

(ii) Appointing authority.

(iii) An authority to whom appointing authority is inferior.

(iv) An authority who has been empowered by general or special order by the State Government.

Even assuming that Collector is competent to place the petitioner under suspension being superior to the appointing/disciplinary authority, facts remains that Collector has not chosen to suspend the petitioner, rather he directed the inferior competent authority to place the petitioner under suspension. In the considered opinion of this Court, the quasi judicial powers including the power to place an employee under suspension is to be exercised dispassionately without there being any pressure of the superior authority. Had it been a case where the order is passed by the Collector himself, the matter would have been different because in that eventuality the Collector would have passed the order himself and would not have directed to pass the order in a particular manner by the inferior authority. In quasi judicial proceedings no competent authority should be guided by higher authority.

Considering the aforesaid, even if Collector is competent, fact remains that he has not placed the petitioner under suspension and he dictated the SDO to place the petitioner under suspension. For this reason alone the order Annexure P-1 and P-2, to the extent petitioner is placed under suspension, is bad in law. Accordingly, orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 are set aside. However, it is made clear that the competent authority is at liberty to take fresh decision/pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.