P.S. Pandey vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard on admission.

Placing reliance on the decisions in Vinod Kumar Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and Others, and Ravi Bhatt Vs. State of M.P. and Another, , petitioner, a Senior Sub-Engineer in Rural Engineering Services calls in question legality of order date 28.07.2014; whereby, Collector, District Satna has placed him under suspension for dereliction of duties. The said suspension order, as apparent there from is in purported exercise of power under Rule 9(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1966 Rules’).

Petitioner questions the suspension on the ground that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Collector to suspend the petitioner who is a Class-II gazette officer declared to be so vide order dated 22.12.2004. It is contended that the Collector is delegated with such powers vide notification dated 10.01.1997 whereon under Rule 9 and 10 of the 1966 Rules he can suspend and impose minor penalty on employees of Class-III and Class-IV of all the departments, except police personnel''s posted under his district. It is further contended that in respect of Class-II gazette officers, the power to suspend is only vest with the Additional Commissioner who is conferred with such powers vide notification dated 01.01.2002. On these grounds the petitioner questions jurisdiction of Collector to suspend the petitioner.

Evident it is from the suspension order that the petitioner when placed under suspension was on deputation to Janpad Panchayat and charges for dereliction of duties is in respect of execution of the scheme and that the schemes are the schemes being under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2005 Act’) and that the Collector under the Act is District Programme Coordinator appointed under Section 14 of the 2005 Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the 2005 Act confers the District Programme Coordinator for execution of the scheme in the district in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under.

Apparent it is from the order that the suspension was in respect of execution of the scheme when the petitioner was on deputation to Janpad Panchayat under the control of District Programme Coordinator who is the Collector of the district. It is further apparent from the impugned order that the same is passed in exercise of powers conferred vide Rule 9 (1) (a) of the 1966 Rules. The Rule stipulates :

“9. (1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor, by general special order, may place a Government servant under suspension -

(a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or

(b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial :

Provided that a Government Servant shall invariably be placed under suspension when a challan for a criminal offence involving corruption or other moral turpitude is filed after sanction of prosecution by the Government against him :

Provided further that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made. ”

(emphasis supplied)

Thus as per 2nd proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the 1966 Rules an authority lower in rank than the appointing Authority can place a government servant under suspension, however, such authority has to forthwith report the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order is made.

In the case at hand, as contended by learned counsel for petitioner, the appointing Authority of the petitioner is State Government. The necessary corollary would be that the Collector being an Authority lower than the appointing Authority, on suspension of the petitioner had to forthwith report the appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order is made.

The impugned order when examined in the light of the aforesaid analysis reveals that the order is being docketed to Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Panchayat and Rural Development Department i.e. the appointing Authority of the petitioner.

In view of above analysis, the contention that the Collector does not have the jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner has no substance. Furthermore, the decision relied upon by the petitioner in Vinod Kumar Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and Others, and Ravi Bhatt Vs. State of M.P. and Another, are also of no assistance to the petitioner as both the decisions does not dwell upon the scope of 2nd proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the 1966 Rules.

Having thus considered this Court does not find any substance in the challenge. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.