K K SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 2(1) of the MP. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by order dated 13-2-2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2345/2012 whereby the order dated 10-9-2007 and 29-6-2011 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal and the State Government respectively suspending the appellant, have been quashed while the charge-sheet issued to the appellant on 18-10-2007 has been upheld. The undisputed facts of the case are that action had been taken against the appellant on account of the fact that an Income-Tax raid for search and seizure was made in his premises on 5-4-2007 during which cash worth Rs. 4.82 lacs and several documents relating to investments were seized which indicated that the appellant had relations with several builders. The State Government, on receiving the aforesaid information, issued an order on 10-9-2007 directing the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal to suspend the appellant and to initiate a departmental enquiry against him pursuant to which the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal passed the order of suspension of the appellant on the same day, i.e., on 10-9-2007 with information of the same to the Mayor-in-Council. The order of the Commissioner was placed before the Mayor-in-Council who ratified it by granting approval to it in its meeting held on 12-9-2007.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that in view of the provisions of the M.P. Municipal Corporations (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation Rules") and the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Civil Service Rules") and the admitted fact that the Appointing Authority of the appellant is the Mayor-in-Council the charge-sheet issued on 18-10-2007 by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, who is not the Appointing Authority of the appellant, deserves to be quashed on the ground that it was issued without power, authority or jurisdiction. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge should have quashed the impugned charge-sheet on the same grounds on which the order of suspension was quashed as the impugned charge-sheet has been issued on the directions of the State Government and, therefore, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, upholding the charge-sheet while quashing the order of suspension which suffers from the same illegality, deserves to be set aside.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation, on advance copy, submits that on search and seizure proceedings being conducted at the appellant's premises several incriminating documents relating to property as well as cash were seized from the premises of the appellant and as the conduct of the appellant was negligent in the discharge of his duties, therefore, the State Government issued an order on 10-9-2007 directing the Municipal Corporation to suspend the appellant and to initiate a departmental enquiry against him. It is submitted that the State Government is competent to issue such a direction under Section 420 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and even though the said provision has not been mentioned in the order, the power of the State Government to issue such a direction flows from Section 420 of the Act.