TARAWATI ALWA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSAILING order Annexure P/1 dated 3.2.2005 of removal of petitioner, this petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) ON perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner was appointed as Superintendent at Banchada Mahila Silai Kendra Bardia Tehsil Manasa , having her lien on the original post of Assistant Teacher. It was found that one of the girl residing in the Hostel had become pregnant and gave birth to a child. However, suspending the petitioner and after issuing notice a departmental enquiry was conducted wherein she was found guilty of dereliction in discharge of her duties. However, the enquiry and affording an opportunity the order impugned Annexure P/1 was passed by the Collector Neemuch, which has been challenged in this petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner was appointed as per order Annexure P/2 by the District Organiser Tribal Welfare Department. It has been specifically stated that the Collector of the District is not competent to impose major penalty i.e. removal from service. In the reply to the aforesaid by filing the document Annexure R/2 it is said that the Collector of the District has been conferred with the power of disciplinary authority against Class-III and Class-IV employees. After careful reading of the order passed and the document Annexure R/2 by which certain right to impose a minor penalty has been delegated while by the impugned order, petitioner was removed which is a major penalty as specified under Rule 10 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. In addition the guidance may be taken from a judgment of M.P. State Administrative Tribunal in the case of Lalmani Choudhary vs. State of M.P. & others 1996 MPLSR 351 wherein it was observed that the Collector is not specified in the hierarchy of the Tribal Welfare Department. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the fact that on raising the issue of not having jurisdiction of the Collector to impose the major penalty, the State Government is unable to produce any document having competence to pass the order of removal of the petitioner.