PREM KUMAR PACHORI Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 18.10. 2012 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Commissioner, Revenue Division, Gwalior placing the petitioner, who holds the substantive post of Assistant Engineer working in the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, under suspension by invoking Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules 1966 for the reasons of chargesheet dated 26.9. 2012 having been issued against the petitioner for conduction of disciplinary proceedings into financial irregularities.

(2.) THE singular ground of challenge to the impugned order of suspension raised by the petitioner is that the same has been passed by an incompetent authority.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner primarily submits that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Mayor - inCouncil as per Section 58 of the Municipal Corporation Act 1956 ('Act of 1956' for brevity) and Rule 2 (b) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Service Rules 2000 (Rules of 2000 for brevity). It is further submitted that the invocation of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1966 for placing the petitioner under suspension is unsustainable, as the Commissioner, Revenue Division, Gwalior does not fall in any of the four categories of authorities competent under Rule 9 (1) of Rules 1966 to place the petitioner under suspension. The invocation of Rules of 1966 is further urged to be untenable as the petitioner does not fall within the definition of government servant under Rule 2 (f) of the Rules of 1966. It is the further contention that notification dated 15.9.2008 published in M.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 18.9. 2008 empowering the Divisional Commissioner Revenue to take disciplinary action in regard to the minor penalty against Class I and Class II government servants is of no assistant to the State in view of the said notification being exclusively applicable to government servants and not to the employees of Municipal Corporation. It is lastly submitted against the impugned order that even the provisions of Section 417 (A) of the Act of 1956 do not clothe the Commissioner Revenue with the powers to place the petitioner under suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Das Vs. Devandas,1995 MPLJ 185 and 2008 2 SCC 10.