JAGDISH CHANDRA Vs. COLLECTOR DISTT DEWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order annexure P-5, dated 21-1-2006 by which petitioner, who is Head Clerk-cum-Accountant posted at Nagar Panchayat Bagli, District Dewas has been placed under suspension by the order of Collector, Djstt. Dewas.

(2.) IT is the case of petitioner that he was initially appointed in the nagar Palika Bagli as LDC vide Annexure P-1 and promoted as Head clerk- cum- Accountant as per resolution No. 31, dated 6-12-94. The order of his promotion was confirmed by the Director of Urban Administration and development Government of M. P. on 2-6-95 vide Annexure P-2. However, it is urged that he is appointed in the Municipal Council Bagli under the provisions of Section 94 sub-section (4) of the Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as "the Act" ). Under sub-section (4) of Section 94 of the Act, a municipal employee may be placed under suspension by the President in Council constituted under Section 70 of the Act, which is the Disciplinary Authority under M. P. Municipal Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service rules, 1968 (hereinafter called as "the Recruitment Rules" ). It is said that the collector Dewas, who has passed the order of suspension Annexure P-5, dated 20-1-2006, is neither his Appointing Authority nor the Disciplinary Authority, however, power as exercised by him to place the petitioner under suspension is without any authority under the law arbitrary, mala fide, and illegal.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has drawn my attention to of Rule 51 of the Recruitment Rules, which defines the Disciplinary authority, the case in hand, the power of Disciplinary Authority is vested in the council or with President in Council. As per Rule 53 of the Recruitment Rules, the order of suspension may be passed by the Disciplinary Authority after having regard to the nature of the charges and the circumstances of the case. In the present case, power of the Disciplinary Authority has been exercised by the collector, who has not been delegated with the powers of Disciplinary and competent to exercise such powers under the Recruitment Rules. Therefore, the action of respondent No. 1 to place him under suspension is illegal without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Prayer is made to quash the order of suspension annexure P-5 passed by respondent No. 1 and petitioner may be allowed to work and grant him all consequential and monetary benefits.