Siyaram Yadav vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, Judge

Heard. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.

Petitioner a Headmaster of Middle School is placed under suspension by order (Annexure P/1) dated 06.07.2012. This is challenged on the ground of competence of the CEO. By placing reliance on Annexure P/2 dated 25.06.2005 it is stated that the petitioner is a Gazetted Officer. Shri Sharma further submits that the CEO is neither Disciplinary nor Appointing Authority of the petitioner.

Per contra, Shri Shrivastava supported the order and relied on the circular/order dated 27th July 1997.

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

Under Rule-9 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as M.P. C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1966 a Government employee can be suspended by the following authorities:-

(i) Appointing Authority.

(ii) By the authority to whom appointing authority is sub-ordinate/inferior.

(iii) Disciplinary Authority.

(iv) By an authority who has been delegated with the power by the general or special order.

The respondents have heavily relied on the order dated 27th June 1997. By this order all the Chief Executive Officers were declared as "Additional Directors, Public Instructions". In clause-3 of the table appended, it is made clear about the authorities who are competent to take disciplinary action against the employees who were working in the Schools.

A microscopic reading of the table at internal page No. 2, of the order dated 27th June 1997 shows that the Additional Director is declared as Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of imposing major punishments. The Chief Executive Officers were treated as Additional Directors and, therefore, by way of this general order CEO has become Disciplinary Authority to impose major punishment. Once he is declared as Disciplinary Authority, he became competent to place the petitioner under suspension. It is true that in column No. 4 of the appendix Joint Director is shown as competent to place the petitioner under suspension but at the same time Disciplinary Authority is equipped with this power to place an employee under suspension which is in consonance of rule 2(d), 9 & 13 of CCA Rules, 1966. Even assuming petitioner is Gazetted Officer, no separate provision is shown that the aforesaid order and CCA Rules will not be applicable on them.

I am of the considered opinion, that CEO is a Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner as per Rule 2(d) read with Rules 9, 13 of M.P. C.S. (CCA) Rules 1966 and being disciplinary authority he is competent authority to place the petitioner under suspension. Accordingly, this petition is not entertained because petitioner has statutory remedy to prefer an appeal under CCA Rules. Resultantly, petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within 10 days before the competent authority and the same shall be decided in accordance with law. The impediment of delay will not come in the way of the petitioner. It be noted that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.