YOGENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order Annexure P/1 dated 23.02.2013, whereby it is alleged that Commissioner-Registrar, Cooperative Societies, instructed the Managing Director to place the petitioner under suspension. The order dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure P/2), whereby the petitioner is placed under suspension by the Managing Director is also under challenge.

(2.) THE singular ground of attack advanced by Shri Ravindra Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner, is on the point of competency of respondent No. 2 and alleged act of working under dictate by respondent No.3. By drawing attention of this Court on the Statutory Rules, it is mentioned that the petitioner is a Class-I employee and competent authority to suspend him is the Managing Director of respondent No.3. In grounds of writ petition (para 'B') the petitioner contended that only the cadre committee and Managing Director of the respondent No.3 are competent to place the petitioner under suspension. It is further contended that respondent No.3 is appointing and disciplinary authority of the petitioner and only said authority can place him under suspension. Even higher authority/ respondent No.2 cannot direct the suspension of the petitioner.

(3.) SHRI Brijesh Sharma supported the order and submits that serious allegations of irregularity and corruption are made against the petitioner. In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed before this Court, certain directions were issued. Considering the entire factual backdrop and applying independent application of mind the respondent No.3 decided to place the petitioner under suspension. This order cannot be said to be an order passed mechanically or under dictate of any superior officer. Shri Sharma also produced the note sheets and orders pursuant to which Annexure P/2 was passed by respondent No.3.