The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Commissioner (Revenue) was not competent to place the petitioner, a municipal employee, under suspension, as the Rules 2015 provided for the Commissioner as the disciplinary authority for the petitioner.

ORDER

Since the pleadings are complete, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

1. This petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashment of the order dated 24.09.2019 [Annexure-P-3] whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension by respondent No.3 i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Shahdol Division, Shahdol.

2. The order impugned has been assailed mainly on the ground that respondent No.3 is not the competent authority to pass the order impugned and to place the petitioner under suspension. Thus, the core question which emerges for adjudication is whether respondent No.3 is competent to place the petitioner under suspension or not?

3. For deciding the issues involved in the case, the important facts are required to be mentioned which are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Engineer on 06.11.1989 in the erstwhile Special Area Development Authority (SADA]. The SADA was later on abolished and the services of the petitioner were merged in State Municipal Services on the post of Sub-Engineer in the year 1996. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 22.01.2016.

4. As per the petitioner, his services are governed under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh State Urban Engineering Service (Recruitment and Condition of Service] Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 2015']. The petitioner is at present posted in Nagar Palika Parishad, Shahdol and also holding additional charge of Executive Engineer. The Nagar Palika Parishad, Shahdol, had undertaken the work of renovation and beatification of the Mohanram Mandir Talab situated in District Shahdol, for which, fund has been sanctioned by the Collector, Shahdol. Some complaints were made and Vidhansabha question was raised alleging that the construction work was done without obtaining the requisite sanction. A three members committee was constituted to examine the issue and report was submitted pointing out some procedural irregularities on the part of the petitioner. On the basis of enquiry report submitted by the committee, it is found that the petitioner was involved in the embezzlement of certain amount of money in pursuance to which, a departmental enquiry was proposed and vide order impugned dated 24.09.2019, the petitioner has been placed under suspension by respondent No.3.

5. As per the petitioner, Rule 2(d) of the Rules, 2015 defines the term 'Commissioner', which means the Commissioner Urban Administration & Development Madhya Pradesh and further Schedule-I of Rules, 2015 also prescribes the disciplinary authority. So far as the Assistant Engineer is concerned and as per the same, the Commissioner is the disciplinary authority and the State Government is the appointing authority. The petitioner, therefore, contended that the Commissioner Revenue has no authority to take any action against the petitioner and to place him under suspension. In support of his contention, the petitioner has placed reliance upon the orders passed by this Court on various occasions i.e. Jagdish Chandra vs. Collector, District Dewas and others reported in 2007 (2) MPHT 449 , Sheetal Kumar Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and three others, 2016 SCC Online MP 5449 passed in W.P. No.5289/2016and then order passed in W.P. No.4464/2017 (Smt. Anita Baghel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and in W.P. No.5108/2015 (Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. Urban Development Department and others], wherein the High Court has held that the Commissioner (Revenue] cannot exercise the power of suspension in respect of the petitioner.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State submits that though the services of the petitioner are governed under the provisions of Rules, 2015, but no separate rules governing the disciplinary proceedings in respect of members of State Urban Engineering Services have been framed by the State Governme