LAWS(MPH)-2008-12-16

KAMLESH DUBEY Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On December 01, 2008
KAMLESH DUBEY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. THIS petition is directed against the order dated 15-10-2008 (Annexure P-1) by which the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior refused to grant stay against an order dated 6-10-2008 (Annexure P-2) by which the collector, Ashoknagar placed the petitioner under suspension, with a further direction that the petitioner shall be entitled for subsistence allowance and his headquarter shall be at the office of Janpad Panchayat, Chanderi.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the collector, Ashok Nagar by the impugned order has not only suspended the petitioner but also directed that the petitioner shall be entitled for subsistence allowance, meaning thereby the petitioner, who was also a Panchayat Karmi, was suspended even from the post of Panchayat Karmi. The Collector, who was an Appointing Authority under Section 69 (1) of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 was not empowered to suspend the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi. The provision of M. P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 though provides a provision of suspension under Rule 4, but it has not empowered the Collector to suspend the petitioner even from the post of Panchayat Karmi. It is submitted that without issuance of any show-cause notice or extending an opportunity of hearing, the petitioner was placed under suspension, which order deserves to be stayed till the decision of this petition.

(3.) SHRI Vivek Khedkar, Government Advocate appearing for the state, supported the order and submitted that on finding serious allegations against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension. There were serious allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner had made excessive expenses in respect of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) and because of this he was placed under suspension. The provision of suspension is provided under Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules and the Collector was empowered to pass such an order which order is in accordance with law. The commissioner vide order (Annexure P-1) has rightly not stayed the order which order needs no interference by this Court.