SATYENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by order dtd. 31/10/2019, five increments of petitioner was withheld with cumulative effect and it was also directed that she shall not be granted salary for the suspension period except subsistence allowance. It is further submitted that respondent No. 3 the Collector has imposed a major penalty upon the petitioner, though respondent No. 3 has no jurisdiction to impose a major penalty as he is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority. The power delegated to respondent No. 3 is only to impose minor penalties upon Class III and Class IV employees and therefore, respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to impose a major penalty. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal; however, the appellate authority did not consider the aforesaid aspects and rejected the appeal. It is further submitted that this controversy has already been decided by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 1/3/2017 (Govind Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Others- W.P.4067/2011). The co-ordinate Bench in Govind Singh Yadav (supra) has held that Collector did not possess the power to impose major penalty.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the State, while supporting the impugned order, opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is further submitted that the grounds raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition were not raised in the appeal; therefore, she prays for dismissal of the petition.