Yogendra Kumar Singh vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order Annexure P/1 dated 23.02.2013, whereby it is alleged that Commissioner-Registrar, Cooperative Societies, instructed the Managing Director to place the petitioner under suspension. The order dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure P/2), whereby the petitioner is placed under suspension by the Managing Director is also under challenge. The singular ground of attack advanced by Shri Ravindra Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner, is on the point of competency of respondent No. 2 and alleged act of working under dictate by respondent No. 3. By drawing attention of this Court on the Statutory Rules, it is mentioned that the petitioner is a Class-I employee and competent authority to suspend him is the Managing Director of respondent No. 3. In grounds of writ petition (para ''B'') the petitioner contended that only the cadre committee and Managing Director of the respondent No. 3 are competent to place the petitioner under suspension. It is further contended that respondent No. 3 is appointing and disciplinary authority of the petitioner and only said authority can place him under suspension. Even higher authority/respondent No. 2 cannot direct the suspension of the petitioner.

Shri Brijesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, fairly admitted that the competent authority to place the petitioner under suspension is the Managing Director. The bone of contention of Shri Ravindra Dixit is that the Managing Director has passed the order Annexure P/2 under dictate of the Registrar and, therefore, this order of Managing Director Annexure P/2 is liable to be interfered with. He relied on Surjit Ghosh Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank, and others, Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Vs. Greenworld Corporation, Parwanoo, and Pancham Chand and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others,

Shri Brijesh Sharma supported the order and submits that serious allegations of irregularity and corruption are made against the petitioner. In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed before this Court, certain directions were issued. Considering the entire factual backdrop and applying independent application of mind the respondent No. 3 decided to place the petitioner under suspension. This order cannot be said to be an order passed mechanically or under dictate of any superior officer. Shri Sharma also produced the note sheets and orders pursuant to which Annexure P/2 was passed by respondent No. 3.

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

In Surjit Ghosh (supra) the Apex Court opined that the Deputy General Manager had acted as disciplinary authority when he was under the regulation named as an appellate authority. The Apex Court found that such dismissal order passed by appellate authority suffers from inherent defect and is accordingly set aside. In Green World corporation (Supra) it was held that when a statute provides for different hierarchies providing for forums in relation to passing of an order as also appellate or original order, the higher authority cannot interfere with the independence which is the basic feature of any statutory scheme involving adjudicatory process. In Pancham Chand (supra) it was held that as per the statutory provision, the concerned authorities are bound to act in terms of said scheme and cannot act beyond that.

The basic question involved in the present case is whether the competent authority has acted merely on the basis of Annexure P/1 or applied his own mind. Notes and orders/record pursuant to which impugned order Annexure P/2 is passed is placed for perusal of this Court. Note sheet was put up before the Managing Director which contains the various letters of various authorities including letter of Collector/District Magistrate, Bhind, Joint Commissioner Cooperative, Commissioner and Registrar Cooperative etc. The attention is drawn on the order passed by this Court in WP No. 567/13 (PIL) (Gangasingh Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors.). Before dealing with the matter it is apt to quote the following portion from the order of Division Bench dated 31.01.2013:

Considered the submissions. On bare perusal of the letter (Annexure P-1) it transpires that on the basis of certain complaints made against respondent No. 7 an inquiry was conducted in which the allegations made in the complaint were found to be true as a result of which the Joint Commissioner, Cooperative Societies, Chambal Division sent the recommendatory letter to the Collector to take necessary action in accordance with law.

The Court hopes and trust that certainly the Collector will take a note of the said recommendation and if necessary may refer the matter to the concerning department to take necessary action.

A bare perusal of the order of Division Bench shows that the Division Bench directed the Collector to take note of the recommendations and refer the matter to concerning department to take necessary action.

Before the competent authority/respondent No. 3 the aforesaid matter and also the order dated 23.02.2013 was placed. Note sheets show that he has taken note of all the documents and passed the order Annexure P/2. A simple reading of Annexure P/2 and relevant note sheets show that the respondent No. 3 has not acted under dictate of respondent No. 2 and other authorities. However, he has taken note of the said documents issued by other authorities, it was not impermissible in law, more so, when the Division Bench of this Court had directed the Collector to refer the matter to the concerning department. A simple reading of the order dated 12.03.2013 shows that the suspension order is passed on the basis of the facts which came into the light. The allegations against the petitioner are very serious and are relating to fiscal irregularities.

This Court is of the considered opinion that the suspension order is not passed mechanically under dictate of other authorities including respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the judgments relied upon by Shri Dixit are of no assistance to him in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Annexure P/1 is an internal correspondence between the Managing Director and Commissioner Cooperative and, therefore, no interference is warranted against this order. The order Annexure P/3 does not give any cause of action to the petitioner. Suspension, in service jurisprudence, is not treated as punishment. The Apex Court in State of Orissa and Others Vs. Mesco Steels Ltd. and Another, opined that a writ petition seeking interference at pre-decisional stage with provisional decision which constituted only a step in process of taking final decision is premature. The final decision would be when the petitioner is held guilty in a disciplinary proceedings or in a criminal case, as the case may be. Writ petition against view taken in inter-departmental Government communication which did not finally decide rights and obligations of parties so as to furnish a cause of action must be treated as premature. The respondent No. 3 is admittedly competent to place the petitioner under suspension. On the basis of above analysis and peculiar facts of this case, judgments cited by Shri Dixit have no application. In this view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere in this petition. Petition is merit less and is hereby dismissed.