SHIV PRASAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The core issue projected by the petitioner is that petitioner's parent department is Hoticulture department. His services were taken on deputation by the Panchayat Department. The petitioner was repatriated to his parent department on 14.6.2013 (Annexure P/3). After repatriation to the parent department, the Collector (Zila Panchayat) has no authority, jurisdiction and competence to place the petitioner under suspension and issue the charge sheet. By placing reliance on a division bench judgment of this court reported in (2015) 2 MPHT-29(B.L.Satyarthi v. State of M.P) . Shri Yadav submits that the borrowing authority has no authority to place the petitioner under suspension and issue the charge sheet when his services were already repatriated back to the parent department. In addition, it is submitted that by order dated 27.12.2016, certain findings and directions were given by the Additional District Magistrate against the petitioner whereas petitioner was neither party to that litigation nor was put to notice by the said authority. Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 27.12.2016 preferred a revision which is pending consideration before the Revising authority. The impugned order of suspension and charge sheet are founded upon the order Annexure P/4. The impugned order is passed mechanically without application of mind.

(2.) Shri Yadav assailed the charge sheet by contending that the charge sheet is also issued by the Collector in the capacity of head of Zila Panchayat i.e borrowing authority. The borrowing authority as per CCA Rules, cannot issue the charge sheet after repatriation and, therefore, the chargesheet is also liable to be interfered with. Furthermore, it is submitted that the notification dated 23.5.96 (Annexure R/1) empowers the Collector to exercise powers under rule 9 to suspend and impose minor penalty on all the employees of Class-III and Class-IV of the government departments. However, the impugned charge sheet is issued under rule 14 of the CCA Rules which is a major penalty proceedings. The Collector is empowered to issue minor penalty proceedings only and major penalty proceeding initiated at the behest of Collector/borrowing authority cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

(3.) Per contra, Shri Rahul Mishra, GA supported the impugned order on the basis of return and additional return. In addition, he submits that in view of general notification dated 23.5.96 (Annexure R/1), the Collector is competent to initiate proceedings and impose minor penalty on all Class-III and Class-IV employees irrespective of their department. Thus, the judgment of Satyarthi (supra) has no application in the present case. The impugned suspension order is appellable, hence this petition may not be entertained.