Ramswaroop and others vs Babulal and another

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, propriety and validity of order dated 22/07/2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissioner Land Records and Settlement, M.P., Gwalior whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that petitioner is holding a post of Superintendent of Land Record. He is a class-II Gazetted Officer. The petitioner was suspended on account of certain irregularities committed by him in the Patwari Selection Examination for the year 2008 conducted by Vyapam on various grounds. The petitioner was one of the Member of the Committee constituted for the purpose of selection. However, subsequently vide order dated 15/07/2010 constitution of the committee was changed in which the petitioner was not a Member. The entire selection was made by the subsequent committee constituted and accordingly the petitioner was not at fault in making any appointment to the post of Patwari. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner.

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of suspension dated 22/07/2011 has been issued for vague charges which runs contrary to law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs Bimal Kumar Mohanty reported in AIR 1994 SC 2296. The second contention is that the petitioner not being the Member of the Committee could not have been suspended leaving other persons who are responsible for the act. Thirdly, it is contended that under Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, control and appeal) Rules, 1966, only appointing authority or authority empowered by general or special order, can place the petitioner under suspension. In the present case, the petitioner being a class- 2 gazetted officer, the Commissioner Land Records is not empowered to place the petitioner un der suspension. For the available reasons, the impugned order of suspension is bad in law, therefore, the same deserves to be set-aside.

Return has been filed by the respondents/State. Counsel for the respondents/State submits that the suspension order dated 22/07/2010 passed by respondent No.2 was not in the knowledge of the State Government. However, the competent authority of the petitioner has rightly issued order dated 1/08/2011, but the petitioner has not assailed the said order. The suspension order was passed since certain irregularities committed by the petitioner for which a preliminary enquiry was also conducted. Apart from that, the charge sheet has already been issued to the petitioner. The action of the answering respondents is just and proper and therefore present petition being devoid of substance and is misconceived deserves to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not aggrieved by the order dated 01/08/2011 (Annexure R- 1) and therefore the same has not been challenged. However, he submits that impugned order dated as 22/07/2011 (Annexure P-1) which is wrongly dated 22/07/2012 deserves to be set-aside for the reasons stated herein above.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is apparent that the order of suspension dated 22/07/2011 has been passed by the Commissioner Land Records and Settlement M.P., Gwalior who is not the appointing authority of the petitioner where as the State Government being the appointing authority of the petitioner, is alone competent to pass the suspension order. The respondents have not pointed out that the power to suspend has been delegated by a general or specific order by which the petitioner can be put under suspension. Moreover, the fact remains that the respondents have also issued another charge sheet dated 01/08/2011 (Annexure R-1 ) which is not under challenge in the present petition. In these circumstances, the order of suspension dated 22/07/2011 (Annexure P-1) deserves to be dismissed and is hereby setaside. Since the petitioner has not challenged the second suspension order dated 01/08/2011 (Annexure R-1), therefore, the same is not being interfered with. The respondents are free to proceed in accordance with law with regard to order dated 01/08/2011.

The writ petition stands disposed of.