DHEERENDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 30/09/2011 Annexure-P/1 on the singular ground that he has been placed under suspension by Chief-Engineer under the dictate of the superior authorities/Principal Secretary, which is impermissible in law.

(2.) SHRI Kushwah learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure-P/1 and the document at page 14 of writ petition makes it crystal clear that petitioner is placed under suspension pursuant to order dated 23/09/2011 passed by the Principal Secretary. On the strength of this learned counsel submits that there is no independent application of mind by the Chief-Engineer and he has merely acted on the dictate. He submits that suspension order can very well be passed by any of the authorities empowered under Rule 9(1) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, "CCA Rules"), but while exercising such power, the competent authority has to apply its mind and cannot act under the dictate of superior authority.

(3.) IT is stated that the petitioner is facing a disciplinary proceedings, wherein serious allegations are made against him. On that basis he was placed under suspension. However, the question is whether Annexure-P/1 is justified when it is passed pursuant to some direction of the higher authority. In the considered opinion of this Court, a simple reading of 9(1) of the CCA Rules aforesaid, makes it crystal clear that the following authorities can place an employee under suspension:-