ORDER :

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking jurisdiction of this Court by challenging the order dated 14.11.2017 (Annexure P/1), by which the petitioner, who is Revenue Sub Inspector posted at Nagar Panchayat, Kirodimal Nagar, District Raigarh has been placed under suspension.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat, Kirodimal Nagar, District Raigarh. After up gradation of Gram Panchayat, Nagar Panchayat was carved out and on 13.06.2011 (Annexure P/2), the service of the petitioner was absorbed in Nagar Panchayat, Kirodimal Nagar on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector (Moharrir) and, thereafter, on 30.08.2013 (Annexure P/ 4), after completion of the probation period, he was confirmed on the said post. Thereafter, on 11.05.2017 (Annexure P/5), he was promoted as Revenue Sub Inspector. By the impugned order, respondent No.2/Collector without any authority of law, suspended the petitioner. Since the regular Chief Municipal Officer of Nagar Panchayat, Kirodimal Nagar was on leave, the petitioner was given the charge of In-charge Chief Municipal Officer from 02.09.2017 to 06.09.2017 and during the said period, the danger of dengue was on high alarm in Kirodimal Nagar and the incomplete work of drainage was to be completed on priority basis as directed by the regular CMO. Hence, this Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been appointed by President-in-Council of Nagar Panchayat, Kirodimal Nagar, District Raigarh and he has governed under Chattisgarh Municipal Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Services Rules, 1968 (in short “the services Rules,1968”). The Collector is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order is void ab initio. For the above submission, he would placed reliance on the matter of Jagdish Chandra Vs. Collector, District Dewas and another, 2007 (2) JLJ 154.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that vide order dated 23.05.1996 (Annexure R/1), the powers under Rule 9 of M.P Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short “the Rules,1966”) have been delegated to the Collector concerned with regard to Class III and IV employees of the Government. Thus, by virtue of the said circular, the Collector of District Raigrah has rightly passed the suspension order of the petitioner. However, he fairly submits that the Collector is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority under the Service Rules, 1968 which is applicable to the petitioner. He would further submit that the law laid down in the matter of Jagdish Chandra (supra) still holds the field.

6. Heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

7. In the matter of Jagdish Chandra (supra), it has been categorically held that the power to suspend the Municipal Employee is vested to the Municipal Council or President-in- Council, i.e., the disciplinary authority for such employees and the State has not delegated any powers of Section 94 (4) (5) of the Municipalities Act, 1961. Thus, by virtue of the powers of Rules 9 and 10 of the Rules, 1966, the Collector cannot acquire the power to suspend Municipal Employees and the relevant para 7 to 9 read thus:-

“7. It is seen from the record that vide Annexure P- 2 the post on which petitioner was appointed, has been notified under Sub-section (4) of Section 94 of the Act. As per Section 95 of the Act, the State Government is empowered to frame the rules to regulate the Service Conditions of the employees of the Municipalities. In exercise of those powers, the Government of M.P. has framed the rules, which are known as M.P. Municipal Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1968. Rule 51 sp