1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 29.5.2015 issued by the learned Collector, Distt. Jhabua by which a charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has straight away drawn attention of this Court towards the recruitment Rules known as M.P. Nagar Palika Karmachari (Bharti Tatha Seva Shartein) Niyam, 1968 and his contention is that as per the recruitment Rules, the President in Council is the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority is Collector. No other authority is mentioned under the recruitment Rules. The contention of the petitioner is that the Collector being the appellate authority could not have issued the charge sheet.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State has drawn attention of this Court towards the charge sheet and her contention is that in the charge sheet a reference has been made to M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the petitioner can certainly prefer an appeal before the next higher authority.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent - State placed heavy reliance upon the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of A. Sudhakar v. Postmaster General, Hyderabad and another, reported in (2006)4 SCC 348. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment.

5. In the aforesaid case, the Superintendent, Post Office was the designated disciplinary authority. However, the order of compulsory retirement was passed by the Director of Postal Services and an appeal was preferred before the Post Master General, meaning thereby, there was an authority available for preferring an appeal in the aforesaid case, whereas, in the present case, after the Collector, there is no authority available and, therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is left with no other forum where he can prefer an appeal keeping in view the specific provision under the recruitment Rules of 1968.

6. This Court, in the case of Jagdish Chandra v. Collector, District Dewas and another, reported in 2007(2) JLJ 154=2007(2) MPHT 449, in paragraph 6 to 12 has held as under :

6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner was appointed as LDC and later on promoted as Head Clerk-cum-Accountant by the Municipal Council Bagli and his promotion was confirmed by the Director of Urban Administration and Development Department, Government of M.P., Bhopal. It is not in dispute that the appointment of petitioner has been made as per the provisions of section 94 of sub-section (4) of the Act. It is also not disputed that the service conditions of municipal employees are governed by the provisions of the Municipalities Act, 1961 and as per M.P. Municipal Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1968. It is merely said that respondent No.1 has conferred the power of supervision under sections 322 and 323 of the Act, and by the circular of Government of M.P. GAD dated 23.5.1996 Annexure R-5; Collector is competent to suspend Class III and Class IV employee. This argument needs inadvertence in lieu of basic provisions of the Act and Recruitment Rules.

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 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 specifies the Disciplinary Authority and rule 53 deals with suspension, pending disciplinary inquiry, however aforesaid rules are being quoted hereinbelow :

51. Disciplin