OM PRAKASH JATAV Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.)

(2.) BY filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.3.2012 whereby he is placed under suspension by Chief Conservator of Forest (respondent No.2). Shri Tomar submits that the respondent No.2 is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. He submits that there is no general or special order authorizing respondent No.2 by the Governor to suspend the petitioner. In absence there of, petitioner submits that order is without jurisdiction. Per contra, the State relied on a Gazette notification dated 4 -11/5/2011 (Annexure R -1) whereby powers were delegated to Conservator of Forest to inflict minor punishment under Rule 10 (1) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. It is further stated by relying circulars dated 7.6.2011 and 29.7.2011 (Annexure R -2) that respondent No.2 is competent to inflict minor punishment on the petitioner and, therefore, automatically becomes the disciplinary authority for the petitioner.

(3.) AS per Rule 9 (1) of M.P.C.S (CCA) Rules, the following authorities are competent to place the employer under suspension.