RAMASHANKAR MATHUR 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 the petitioner submits that the charge sheet dtd. 25/4/2013 was issued by respondent No. 2 while exercising powers in excess of his jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the charge sheet was issued under Sec. 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which are not applicable to the petitioner, as the services of the petitioner are governed by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Services (Recruitment and General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1999. As per the provisions of the 1999 Rules, Part III deals with disciplinary powers, which are vested in the Chief Executive Officer; therefore, the charge sheet issued by the respondent/Collector is illegal. 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. and 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 and learned counsel for petitioner prayed other grounds too.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for State, while supporting the order impugned, opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner. It is submitted that Collector is the head of the Panchayat in a district and being head of the district and as per Notification No.C-6/7/96-3-1 dtd. 23/5/1996, published in M.P Rajpatra (Ext.) dtd. 10/1/2007, Collector is empowered to take action against petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent/State relied upon order dtd. 13/4/2018 passed in W.P. No.13352/2017 [Shiv Prasad Uikley v. The State of Madhya Pradesh].