RAMHET TYAGI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Brijesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 23.6.2011, whereby the petitioner, Assistant Grade-2, is placed under suspension is bad in law. The singular contention of the petitioner is that admittedly the Collector of the district is delegated with the power under rule 9 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called Rules of 1966 ) to place class-3 employees under suspension. However, his contention is that Annexure P/1 dated 23.6.2011 is not an order issued and passed by the Collector but it is an order issued by District Education Officer. Shri Sharma submits that admittedly the District Education Officer is not competent to place the petitioner under suspension. Further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that merely writing - ordered by Collector in Annexure P-1 will not make it an order issued and passed by the Collector.

(2.) Elaborating further learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under rule 9 of the Rules of 1966, which reads as under:-

(3.) Shri Vishal Mishra, learned Government Advocate has produced the note sheet on the direction of this Court. The relevant note sheet reads as under:-