MAHESH KUMAR RAHORA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the common order dated 26.3.2013 whereby the Additional Chief Executive Officer/District Education Officer has placed the petitioner under suspension as per the order of the Collector.

(2.) SHRI D.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, criticized this order by contending that petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi thereafter they became Samvida Shala Shikshak. Subsequently they were absorbed as Varishtha Adhyapak in respondent - municipality. The municipal employees can be placed under suspension under statutory rules which are known as M.P. Municipal Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Services Rules, 1968 (1968 Rules). By taking this Court to rule 53 of said Rules, it is contended that it is only disciplinary authority who can place the petitioners under suspension, if conditions for placing the petitioners mentioned in the said rules are satisfied. It is contended that Annexure R -1 (Madhya Pradesh Nagriya Nikai Adhyapak Samvarg (Niyojan Evam Seva Ki Sharten), Niyam, 2008 (2008 Rules) makes it clear that for Varishtha Adhayapak Collector is appellate authority. Accordingly, as per rule 53 aforesaid, Collector has no authority, jurisdiction and competence to place the petitioners under suspension. It is further contended that respondents have erred in relying on M.P. Panchayat Service (Conduct) Rules, 1998. The said rules have no application on the petitioners/municipal employees.

(3.) SHRI Praveen Newaskar, Deputy Government Advocate for the State did not dispute that the petitioners on absorption became employee of the Municipality. However, he supported the order on the basis of Rules, 2008. By taking this Court to rule 8 of said Rules, it is contended that Collector is competent to place the petitioners under suspension. He fairly admits that in the impugned order, Panchayat conduct Rules are wrongly relied upon.