Back
2006 Supreme(MP) 1271
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Govind Kumar Sen
Vs.
State of M.P. and others
W.P. No. 2867 of 2006 (S)
Decided On: 23.11.2006
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: G.K. Patidar
For Respondents/Defendant:S.P. Joshi, Dy. G.A. for Respondent No. 1 and P.M. Bhurgat, for Respondents No. 2 to 4
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of suspension can only be exercised by the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority, and any suspension order passed without proper authority is arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Suspension - Municipal Corporation Act - Section 55, 57, 58 - The court discussed the relevant provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, particularly Sections 55, 57, and 58, which define the powers and authority of the Commissioner and the appointing authority for suspension of employees. The court highlighted the appointment and removal process of the Commissioner, the power of the Commissioner, and the conditions of service of officers and servants of the Municipal Corporation. It emphasized that the power of suspension can be exercised by the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the suspension order passed by the City Engineer, in-charge Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ratlam. The petitioner contended that the order of suspension was illegal and without jurisdiction as the City Engineer did not have the authority to pass such an order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the City Engineer, in-charge Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ratlam, was not competent to place the petitioner under suspension. The court quashed the suspension order and directed the respondents to treat the petitioner on duty during that period and pay all consequential monetary benefits.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authority of the City Engineer to pass the suspension order, the delegation of powers, and the ratification of the suspension order by the competent authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the City Engineer, in-charge Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ratlam, did not have the authority to exercise the power of the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority to place the petitioner under suspension. The court emphasized that the order of suspension was arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the suspension order was quashed. The respondents were directed to treat the petitioner on duty during that period and pay all consequential monetary benefits.
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner has assailed the validity of the order passed by the Respondent No. 3, Shri R.M. Pandey, City Engineer, in-charge Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ratlam dated 22-4-2006 Annexure-P/1, by which he is placed under suspension.
2. It is the case of Petitioner that as per order Annexure-P/2 dated 16-5-2000 passed by the Respondent No. 2, he was promoted as Revenue Officer in the scale of 5500-9000/- , however, the appointing authority of Petitioner is the Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ratlam. The Commissioner was required to appear in a Court case at Sagar, however, his general charge was delivered to Respondent No. 3 vide note-sheet dated 20-4-2006 filed as Annexure-R/6. This note-sheet of delivery of charge is signed by the Commissioner itself and approved by Respondent No. 4. (Mayor)
3. It is said by Learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner that in the matter of his suspension power can be exercised by the Mayor-in-Council or the Commissioner as the case may be; as per Sections 55, 57 and 58 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter it shall be called as 'Corporation Act' in short). In the present case, when the Respondent No. 2 was to go to Sagar in Court case and not available at Ratlam only for 2 days i.e. on 21-4-2006 and 22-4-2006, Respondent No. 3 has passed the order to place the Petitioner under suspension vide Annexure-P/1 dated 21-4-2006. It is further a case of Petitioner that Respondent No. 3, Mr. R.M. Pandey was merely holding the general charge to the post of Commissioner Municipal Corporation, he cannot pass any order of suspension by exercising disciplinary powers because he was not appointed as Commissioner Municipal Corporation, in exercise of the power under Section 57(2) of the Corporation Act. In such circumstances, the order as passed by Respondent No. 3 is illegal and without jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid submission, prayer is made to quash the order of suspension and to post him as Revenue Officer after revocation thereof.
4. Per contra, Respondents have filed their return and in the return, it is said that because of Petitioner has not carried out the instructions of Respondent No. 4 i.e. Mayor and mis-behaved with her. Therefore, in terms of oral instructions issued by Respondent No. 4 Petitioner was placed under suspension. However, it is said that order of suspension has rightly been passed by the Respondent No. 3. It is further said that Petitioner has already been served with the charge-sheet as per Annexures-R/1 and R/2, for alleged misconduct, therefore, interference in the matter of suspension is not permissible.
5. It is also set forth in the return that Respondent No. 3 is fully empowered to exercise the power of Commissioner, in view of the provisions of Section 57 of the Corporation Act. It is further said that, in terms of the order Annexure-R/4 dated 20-1-1997 passed by the Government of M.P., Respondent No. 3 was appointed as Commissioner, however, he has rightly exercised the power while passing the order of suspension dated 22-4-2006 Annexure-P/1. In view of the aforesaid, it is urged that power of suspension as exercised by Respondent No. 3 is in conformity to Section 57 of the Corporation Act, and as per the Government order Annexure-R/4. It is further said that Respondent No. 2 has granted ex-post-facto approval as per Annexure-R/7, therefore, the order of suspension be now to be treated as passed by Respondent No. 2. Hence, the plea with respect to issuance of the incompetent order of suspension by Respondent No. 3 is not tenable, because it has been ratified later on. It is urged that petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard, Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. I have gone through the relevant provisions of the Corporation Act, which are necessary to decide the controversy involved in the present case. The Section 5(
