ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner though substantively appointed as Assistant Grade- III is working under the administrative control of the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Shahdol by virtue of order dated 27.4.2016 (Annexure P-4) which itself speaks of the fact that the petitioner's services are be utilised by the Zila Panchayat, Shahdol by virtue of attachment thereto.

(2.) Petitioner has been under the administrative control of the Chief Executive Officer under Rule 9(1)(a) of M.P. Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal), Rules 1966. By taking exception to the impugned order it is contended that the C.E.O. has no jurisdiction to pass the order of suspension under Rule 9 of the Rules 1966. It is submitted that the petitioner's appointing authority is the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Shahdol, therefore, order suffers from vice of corum non-Judice.

(3.) Per contra, Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Government Advocate on advance copy contends that the petitioner's services are under the administrative and supervisory control of Zila Panchayat, Shahdol. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Pnachayat Shahdol is superior authority to the Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department. Petitioner has been proceeded under the service Rules applicable to him and, therefore, the suspension order passed under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1966 by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be said to be suffering from the vice of corum non-judice. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order is well within jurisdiction. Rule 9 of the Rules 1966 provides that the appointing authority or any authority notify with the Governor under Rule 9(1) to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension.