SANTOSH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The petitioner, an Accounts Officer, working in Morena Municipality is placed under suspension by Chief Executive Officer, by \ Annexure P-1 dated 12.3.2012. This order is challenged solely on the ground that the Chief Executive Officer and President-in-Council (PIC) are not competent to place the petitioner under suspension.

(2.) SHRI Shyam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Section 94 (1) and (4) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (the Act) to submit that the petitioner is one of those officers whose designation finds place in section 94 (1) and (4) of Section 94 of the said Act. He submits that those officers can be placed under suspension only by the disciplinary authorities. He relied on Rule 51 of M.P. Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 (the Rules) in this regard. He submits that Rule 51 makes it clear that so far the petitioner, an Accounts Officer is concerned, his designation finds place specifically under Section 94(1) and (4) of the Act, and, therefore, the disciplinary authority for the petitioner is Municipal Council. The Standing Committee or PIC has no jurisdiction to place him under suspension.

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