The main legal point established is that the Collector did not have the authority to suspend a Class II employee like the Chief Municipal Officer, and the State Government's ratification of the suspension was not valid.

S.K. Seth, J.

1. Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri S.P. Joshi, learned Dy, Government Advocate for respondents.

Heard on the question of admission,

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2-6-2004 passed by the Collector, Ujjain whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension for the reasons assigned therein. The only contention pf the petitioner is that the Collector is neither the appointing authority of the Chief Municipal Officer nor the disciplinary authority so far as Chief (Municipal Officer of a Municipality is concerned. The Collector is not even authorised as is contemplated under Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1966, therefore, the suspension order is bad in law.

Looking to the contentions, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondents and in response, they have filed a reply. In the reply, it has been stated that the action of the Collector has been ratified by the State Government, therefore, the suspension is justified. The respondents have also relied upon the G.A.D. circular dated 23-5-1996 whereby the Collector of each District has been authorised by the State action for imposition of minor penalty against all the Class III and IV employees posted in the District except the Police personnel.

2. Undisputedly, the Chief Municipal Officer is a Government servant as has been held by Full Bench of this Court in a case Suresh Chandra Sharma v. State of M.P. Ors. 2000 (2) MPLJ 530. The Chief Municipal Officer hold a Class II Gazetted post. There is no dispute about this. No material has been placed on the record to show that the Collector has been empowered to take or initiate disciplinary action against a Class II employee. It is also not in dispute that the Collector is not the appointing authority of the Chief Municipal Officer. The State Government has fully realised that the Collector of a District is not competent to suspend the Chief Municipal Officer as is clear from the order dated 9-3-1990 issued by the State Government Despite that, the impugned order has been issued by the Collector, Ujjain and ignoring the previous order dated 9-3-1990, the State Government has ratified the void ab initio order passed by the Collector. In view of the aforesaid, order impugned cannot be sustained and it has to be set aside. The ratification is generally an act of the principal who acts within the delegated authority and not otherwise. See Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan 1989 (3) SCC 132.

3. In view of the foregoing discussion, order impugned cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set aside. The respondents are free to act in accordance with law to deal with the petitioner with regard to alleged delinquency as mentioned in the impugned suspension order dated 2-6-2004.

In view of the aforesaid, writ petition stands allowed and impugned order is hereby quashed.

C.C. on payment of usual charges.