Nagar Panchayat Badarwas and Another vs Suresh Kumar Sharma and Others

Hon''ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

By filing this review petition, it is stated that the respondent-employee is Assistant Revenue Inspector. Being Assistant Revenue Inspector, he does not fall within the Section 94(4) of the M.P. Municipalities Act (for short'' "1961 Act"). The said employee falls under "other officers and servants" as per Section 94 of the 1961 Act and therefore, the interference made by this Court is required to be reconsidered.

To elaborate, Shri Newaskar Learned Counsel for the review petitioners submits that this Court interfered on the assumption that the employee''s case is covered by Section 94(4) of the 1961 Act, and therefore his disciplinary authority alone can place him under suspension whereas, the said employee being in a different category cannot get protection under the said pretext.

On the contrary, Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi for the employee supported the order.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length.

It is profitable to quote Rule 51 of M.P. Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1968. The rule reads as under:

Disciplinary authorities:-Subject to the provisions of the Act and these rules the Municipal Council shall have the powers to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 49 on any Municipal employee holding post specified in sub-section (4) of Section 94 of the Act and in the case of other Municipal employees the Standing Committee shall have the power to impose any of the said penalties on him".

Section 94 of 1961 Act reads as under:

"94. Appointment of staff:-(1) Every Council having an annual income of five lakhs of rupees or more shall, subject to rules framed u/s 95, appoint a Revenue Officer and an Accounts Officer and may appoint such other officers and servants as may be necessary and proper for the efficient discharge of its duties.

[(2) Every Council not falling under sub-section (1) shall, subject to rules framed u/s 95, appoints a Sanitary inspector, a Sub-Engineer, a Revenue Inspector and an Accountant and may appoint such other officers and servants as may be necessary and proper for the efficient discharge of its duties:

Provided that such Council may appoint a part-time Health Officer or an Engineer on such terms and conditions as the State Government may approve in this behalf.]

(3) The State Government may-

(i) in case of any Council, relax the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as the case may be, subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose; or

(ii) grant permission to any Council to appoint whether temporarily or otherwise one person to discharge the duties of any two or all such officers.

[(4) The appointment of Revenue Officer, Accounts Officer, Sanitary Inspector [Sub-Engineer], Revenue Inspector and Accountant shall be subject to confirmation by the State Government and no such post or the post of any other officer or servant as may be specified by the State Government in this behalf shall be created or abolished and no alteration in the emoluments thereof shall be made without the previous approval of the State Government, and every appointment to, and dismissal from such post, shall be subject to a like approval.]

(5) No order of suspension for a period exceeding one month shall be passed against any officer mentioned in or specified under sub-section (1) and no resignation tendered by any such officer shall be accepted without previous approval of the State Government.

(6) Unless the State Government otherwise directs the power of appointing Municipal Officers and servants other than those mentioned in or specified under sub-section (4) shall vest in the President-in-Council.

A conjoint reading of said provisions will show that respondent No.1 is not an employee covered under sub-section (4) of Section 94 of the Act. He is other employee/servant as per sub-section (1) of Section 94 and therefore, President-in-Council erstwhile "Standing Committee" was competent to pass the order of suspension of respondent No.1. I find force in the argument of Shri Newaskar that this Court has erred in treating the respondent as covered u/s 94(4) whereas, he is to be treated as other employee/servant. Apart from this, the review petitioners have placed reliance on Rule 10 of M.P. Municipalities (the Conduct of Business of the Mayor-in-Council/President-in-Council and the Powers and Functions of the Authorities) Rules 1998 to submit that the said council is equipped with the authority to exercise power u/s 94(1)(2) of the Parent Act.

On the basis of aforesaid analysis, it is clear that this Court has erred in treating the original petitioner as covered u/s 94(4) of the Act, and therefore, the entire analysis and foundation was based on the said assumption. The said assumption, in my considered opinion was factually incorrect and this amounts to an apparent error on the face of the record, which warrants review. Since, very foundation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 73/2012(s) was erroneous, the said order deserves to be recalled. Accordingly, the order passed in the writ petition is recalled. Writ petition is restored to its original number. Registry is directed to list the writ petition aforesaid for final hearing on 28th August, 2012 on the top of the list.