JANVED SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated117.3.2015 whereby the petitioner, a Assistant Development Extension Officer, working in Janpad Panchayat Guna is placcd under suspension by Collector.

(2.) SHRI Vivek Jain, Advocate for the petitioner, assailed this order on singular ground. He submits that Collector has no authority, jurisdiction and competence to place the petitioner under suspension. It is contended that the appointing authority of petitioner as per Madhya Pradesh Rural Development Department Class III (Ministerial and Non -Ministerial) Service Recruitment Rules, 1992, is Development Commissioner, M.P. Collector is not one of those authorities who are empowered to place him under suspension. Initially, he contended that petitioner is not an employee of State Government but in fact is an employee of Janpad Panchayat. During the course of argument, he had given up the said argument and fairly admitted that cadre strength of the post of Assistant Development Extension Officer is 4590. Since it is a State cadre post, it is clear that petitioner is a State Government employee and not an employee of Janpad Panchayat. Reliance is placed on notification No.C -6 -7 -96 -3 -I dated 23.5.1997 published in Gazette on 10.1.1997 to submit that it is a special notification empowering the Chief Executive Officer of concerned Zila Panchayat to suspend or to impose minor penalty on the petitioner. The petitioner 's services have been placed under the control of Panchayat. He submits that earlier notification dated 23rd May, 1996 was a general notification. Thus, general notification cannot be made applicable when a special notification came into being on 10 1 1997 Reliance is placed on (2004)9 SCC 512 (Liverpool and London S.P. and I Association Ltd. v. M.V Sea Success / and another), (2012)3 SCC 64 (Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and another) and AIR 1952 SC 369 (Aswini Kumar Khose and another v. Arhinda Bose and another).

(3.) PRAYER is opposed by Shri Vishal Mishra, Deputy Advocate General for State and Shri S.S. Rawat, Advocate for the respondent No.3. They submitted that the Collector is empowered to inflict minor punishment on Class -Ill and Class -IV employees. Hence, he is a competent authority under rule 9 of MPCS (CCA) Rules, 1966 to place the petitioner under suspension. Impugned order is appealable and petitioner may be directed to prefer an appeal.