Santosh Sharma vs State of M.P. and Others

Hon. Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

The petitioner, an Accounts Officer, working in Morena Municipality is placed under suspension by Chief Executive Officer, by order Annexure P-1 dated 12.3.2012. This order is challenged solely on the ground that the Chief Executive Officer and President-in-Council (PIC) are not competent to place the petitioner under suspension. Shri Shyam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Section 94(1) and (4) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (the Act) to submit that the petitioner is one of those officers whose designation finds place in section 94(1) and (4) of Section 94 of the said Act. He submits that those officers can be placed under suspension only by the disciplinary authorities. He relied on Rule 51 of M.P. Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 (the Rules) in this regard. He submits that Rule 51 makes it clear that so far the petitioner, an Accounts Officer is concerned, his designation finds place specifically u/s 94(1) and (4) of the Act, and, therefore, the disciplinary authority for the petitioner is Municipal Council. The Standing Committee or PIC has no jurisdiction to place him under suspension.

Per contra, Shri Mahesh Goyal, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4, submits that Section 94(5) gives power to the Municipality to place an employee under suspension, whose designations are specified under sub-section (1) of Section 94 for a period of one month and, thereafter only the approval from the State Government is required. He also 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. By placing reliance on Rule 10, it is submitted that the powers are delegated to the President-in-Council in addition to the duties and, therefore, the PIC is competent to place the petitioner under suspension. It is stated that the impugned order is the outcome of the decision of the PIC.

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

Section 94(1) and 94(4) of the Act makes it crystal clear that the designation of Revenue Officer, Accounts Officer, Sanitary Inspector, Sub Engineer and Accountant are specifically mentioned. Rule 51 of the 1968 Rules defines disciplinary authority, which 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

(emphasis supplied)

Rule 53 gives powers to the disciplinary authority to place the petitioner under suspension. A conjoint reading of Rule 51 and 53 aforesaid will make it clear that only the disciplinary authority can place an employee under suspension whose designation is mentioned in Section 94(4) of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioner''s designation is mentioned in Section 94(4). Thus, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner is Municipal Council and not the Standing Committee or PIC. The contention that Rule 10 of 1998 Rules gives power to the Council to place the petitioner under suspension is concerned, it is profitable to quote the said rule as under:-

Other powers and functions of the President-in-Council.-The President-in-Council, in addition to the duties vested in it under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 or the rules or bye-laws made thereunder shall exercise the powers vested in the Council in the following sections of the said Act:-

Sections 93(1), 94(1), (2), 121(1), 126, 160, 3 168 (7), 228, 235, 237, 238, 243, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249, 253 (1), (3), 255 (1), 261, 262 (1), (3), 263, 265, 267, 272, 273, 274, 281.

A careful reading of this rule would show that certain powers are delegated to the President-in-Council which includes powers u/s 94(1) and (2). Section 94(1) and (2) deals with the appointment of staff whereas sub-section 5 deals with the power of suspension. What has been delegated is powers under sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 94. These sub-sections, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not deal with the power of suspension of petitioner, therefore, I am unable to hold that by virtue of Rule 10, powers are delegated to PIC to place the petitioner under suspension. For the purpose of suspension, specific rules are made and thus rules 51 and 53 are not borrowed, nor powers are delegated by the Legislature to PIC. Thus, Rule 10 cannot be read to mean that the powers are given to the President-in-Council to place the petitioner under suspension.

On the basis of aforesaid analysis, it is clear that the petitioner is an Accountant and he can be placed under suspension only by the competent authority, i.e., disciplinary authority. The designation of Accountant is mentioned in sub-section 4 of Section 94 and for those officers, disciplinary authority is Municipal Council and not PIC. Rule 10 does not provide any power to place the petitioner under suspension. Consequently, the suspension order cannot be upheld. It is, accordingly, set aside. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, nor this order will preclude the competent authority to place the petitioner under suspension in accordance with law. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.