BHUPESH PATIDAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that since Chief Executive Officer is not the appointing authority, he does not have the power to place the petitioner under suspension. In support of this argument, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention towards Sec. 89(6) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1994') and pointed out that appointing authority of the petitioner is Zila Parishad.

(2.) He highlighted that even according to Sec. 91 of the Act of 1994 the Chief Executive Officer can impose only two out of three minor penalties and, therefore, if an employee of Panchayati Raj Institution is to be placed under suspension, it can be done by the Zila Parishad or by the District Establishment Committee and not by the Chief Executive Officer.

(3.) In response to petitioner's contention, learned counsel for the respondents invited Court's attention towards Rule 336 (22) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1996') which provides for powers of Chief Executive Officer and Rule 298 of the Rules of 1996 which deals with authorities empowered to impose suspension and submitted that a conjoint reading of these provisions shows that the Chief Executive Officer is empowered to place the petitioner under suspension.