PREM NARAIN DUBEY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE seminal issue that arises for consideration in this petition is whether a Government employee while in service being governed by M. P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') can be allowed to contest an election and be permitted to advance a plea that a man who is a political animal is entitled to do so, the right being basically natural and fundamental in a way, and hence, not liable to be proceeded against in a disciplinary proceeding.

(2.) THE facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication are that the petitioner who was working as Headmaster in Government Middle School, Ramasthan, Block Development, Sohawal, District Satna, filed his nomination papers for Satna Legislative Constituent Assembly No. 33 on 25-10-1993 and after acceptance of his nomination papers he commenced election campaign which was scheduled to be held on 24-11-1993. During the period of campaign he received an order of suspension from the competent authority on 13-11-1993 vide Annexure A-l whereby his Headquarters was fixed in the office of the Block Education Officer, Nagod. Thereafter a departmental enquiry was initiated against him by the respondent No. 4, the Deputy Director, Education, who issued the charge-sheet to him. The petitioner was afforded two days time to submit his explanation in respect of the charge levelled against him. The petitioner made prayer for grant of 15 days time to submit his show cause. He also preferred an appeal on 19-11-1993 to the Joint Director of Public Instructions seeking quashment of the order of suspension and annulling the departmental enquiry initiated against him and eventually an enquiry officer was appointed to cause an enquiry in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is contended in the petition that the suspension order against the petitioner is not in consonance with the Rules and further the authority who passed the order could not have passed the same, as he did not have competence or jurisdiction to do so, as he was holding the authority of Deputy Director. It is put forth that the directions of the disciplinary authority taking action and passing orders against the petitioner affecting him, have to pave the path of extinction. It is urged when nomination papers were accepted by the competent authority and the petitioner was allowed to contest the election because of such acceptance a disciplinary proceeding could not have been initiated against him. It is also highlighted that a maladroit attempt has been made to put the petitioner in a tremendous difficulty to frustrate his right to express himself in a democratic set up.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy of appeal which is provided under Rule 23 of the M. P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as '1966 Rules' ). It is putforth that the order of suspension was issued under Rule 9 of the 1966 Rules, as contesting an election without tendering resignation amounts to misconduct. An order of suspension was issued, as there was a contemplation to initiate a departmental proceeding. The stand taken that the petitioner has an individual right to contest in the election is seriously refuted.