The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a person holding regular appointment on the post to exercise statutory powers, emphasizing the distinction between administrative and statutory functions and the limitations on the authority of a person holding current charge of a post.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 27-4-2007 passed by the respondent No. 5 in his capacity as incharge Chief Medical and Health Officer, Katni, as also the order dated 22-5-2008 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of penalty has been dismissed mainly on the ground of competence of respondent No. 5 to impose such a penalty of removal from service on the petitioner after departmental enquiry.

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Superior Field Worker in the District Filaria Unit, Katni. He was subsequently promoted on the post of Insect Collector on 27-4-2005. It is the averment of the petitioner that except the impugned charge-sheet issued to him, no disciplinary action whatsoever was taken against him. He was diligently, efficiently and honestly discharging the duties. However, as soon as the respondent No. 5 was made incharge Chief Medical and Health Officer, the petitioner became an eyesore of the said respondent, who was putting pressure on the petitioner to do certain work. When the petitioner refused to carry out such orders, which according to the petitioner were illegal, he was threatened to dire consequences. The respondent No. 5 thereafter issued an order of suspension against the petitioner on 13-9-2006 and issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 9-10-2006. As many as 7 charges were levelled against the petitioner, which he denied. However, subsequently a supplementary charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by the same authority alleging three more charges on 23-12-2006. Surprisingly, the respondent No. 5 described himself as a witness against the alleged charges in the supplementary charge-sheet. A reply was submitted by the petitioner, which was not accepted and ultimately an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Enquiry was conducted in hasty manner and a report was drawn against the petitioner.

3. In the meanwhile since the complaints of the petitioner were not being looked into by the authorities of the Department, he made complaint before the Lokayukt and the Collector of the District but nothing was done. A show cause was issued to the petitioner along with the enquiry report calling his explanation alleging that certain charges were fully proved and certain charges were partially proved against the petitioner in the enquiry. The petitioner was having no hope that he will get any justice in the hands of respondent No. 5 and despite all attempts since the petitioner was not granted any justice, on the other hand the order of penalty was issued against him, the petitioner was left with no option but to file an appeal and simultaneously approached this Court by way of filing W.P. No. 8440/2007 (S). However, as the appeal against the order of penalty was pending before respondent No. 3, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the authorities to decide the appeal against the order of penalty, vide order dated 13-7-2007. The said order was brought to the notice of the authorities but since respondent No. 3 has rejected the appeal of the petitioner without any cogent reason, ultimately the petitioner is required to file this writ petition before this Court.

4. Upon issuance of the notice of the writ petition, the respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed their return and have denied the allegations made in the petition. It is contended by the respondents that the enquiry was rightly conducted in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules')- Since the charges were found proved against the petitioner, the competent authority, i.e. respondent No. 4, has passed the order of punishment as prescribed under the Rules. It is contended that the petitioner is habitual in creating pressure upon the authorities by making false complaints and these facts were found p