Jyotsna Toppo D/o Silas Toppo vs State of Chhattisgarh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Chh) 236

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, J.
Jyotsna Toppo D/o Silas Toppo – Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 2615 of 2023
Decided On : 24-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Manoj Paranjpe.
For the Respondent: Sandeep Dubey.

Headnote:
Chhattisgarh State Municipal (Executive/Engineering/Health) Service Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2017 - Rule 33 - Order of suspension - Dereliction of duty - Financial irregularities - Petitioner challenged order of suspension issued by State Government whereby petitioner who is holding post of Chief Municipal Officer at Municipal Council has been placed under suspension - Held, State Government is superior to disciplinary authority, therefore, it has power to take decision to place an employee under suspension - Note-sheet submitted by counsel for respondents during course of hearing would show that matter was referred to State Government and decision was taken to initiate departmental proceedings and to place petitioner under suspension much prior to issuance of order of suspension - Decision has been taken with regard to initiation of department enquiry and placing petitioner under suspension by competent authority - Charge-sheet has been issued by State Government which may act and proceed as disciplinary authority and document in this regard has been placed before Court by counsel for respondents - there is no illegality or infirmity in issuance of order of suspension by respondent No. 1 against petitioner - Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension issued by the State Government dated 10.04.2023, whereby the petitioner who is holding the post of Chief Municipal Officer at Municipal Council, Jashpur, District Jashpur has been placed under suspension.

3. The case, in nutshell, is that the substantive post of the petitioner is Chief Municipal Officer. She was appointed by the State Government as such on 28.02.2014. Her services were transferred to Municipal Council, Jashpur in the month of February, 2022. After receiving certain complaint against the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted by the Committee, constituted by the District Collector on certain allegations and irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. On 17.02.2023 a report was submitted by the Committee where allegations made against the petitioner were found proved. The petitioner was also provided opportunity of hearing which is evident from the contents of inquiry report. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and reply was filed by her on 21.02.2023. There are allegations of dereliction of duty, financial irregularities etc. against the petitioner. The petitioner has been placed under suspension by the State Government vide order dated 10.04.2023 on the ground that the petitioner has delayed regularization of the government land in urban area, failed to give approval for construction of road, drainage, electric poles, pipelines for the financial year 2021-2022, sanctioned 500.00 lacs without prior approval of P.I.C. awarded work of 9.69 lacs to Firm Sheetal Jain, Jashpur and used Community Hall as her own residence and spent Rs. 11.37 lacs and, therefore, she was placed under suspension by the State Government exercising powers under Rule 33 of Chhattisgarh State Municipal (Executive/Engineering/Health) Service Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2017 (for short ‘Rules 2017’).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for placing an employee of Municipal Council under suspension, the authority has to fulfill two conditions:

(i) The order has to be passed after getting concurrence of the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority.

(ii) If the disciplinary proceedings are pending against members of service.

He would further submit that neither concurrence of the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority has been taken, nor departmental proceeding is pending. He would also submit that even article of charge was not issued to the petitioner till 12.04.2023, when this petition was filed. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Balram Singh vs. Municipal Council, Dhamtrari, 1992 MPLJ 195.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that after receiving complaint against the petitioner, a preliminary inquiry was conducted, where the allegations were found proved and the matter was placed before the State Government. The State Government vide order dated 24.03.2023 took a decision to place the petitioner under suspension and to initiate departmental enquiry against her. He would further submit that suspension and initiation of department enquiry is not a afterthought proceeding, therefore, the provisions of Rule 33 of the Rules, 2017 would not apply. He would also submit that the decision has been taken by the State Government which is the appointing authority of the petitioner and the said authority can act as disciplinary authority too. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of P.R. Nayak vs. Union of India, (1972) 1 SCC 332, The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others vs. Tarak Nath Ghosh, 1971 (1) SCC 734 and Union of India and Another vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the instant petition.

7. The petitioner has bee