AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul
In this case, petitioner has challenged the order dated 23/04/2012, whereby pursuant to the decision of President-in-Council (PIC) dated 23/04/2012, he has placed under suspension by the Chief Municipal Officer (CMO). The order of Collector dated 24/04/2012 Annexure-P/1 is also called in question on the ground that the said authority has no jurisdiction to direct the CMO to take action against the petitioner. I have heard Shri Raghuvanshi and Shri Newaskar learned counsel appearing for the parties.
This Court in it''s order passed in W.P.No. 73/2012(s) has held that as per Rule 51 & 53 of M.P. Municipal Employees (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 the disciplinary authority alone is competent to place the employee under suspension. In the said judgment it is held that the Municipal Council is defined in Section 19 of the Municipalities Act, 1961, whereas PIC is constituted u/s 70 of the Act.
In the light of aforesaid, the power to place the petitioner under suspension is vested with the disciplinary authority i.e. Municipal Council and not PIC.
Accordingly for the reasons stated in the said judgment, the impugned order Annexure-P/2 is also bad in law. Accordingly Annexure-P/2 is set aside. The learned Dy. Government Advocate is not in a position to show any provision, which gives power to the Collector to direct disciplinary action against the petitioner.
Accordingly, Annexure-P/1 to the extent respondent No. 2 has directed to take disciplinary action against the petitioner is set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.