The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of the rules governing the suspension of municipal service employees.

JUDGMENT

S.A. Dharmadhikari, J. - The petitioner by the instant petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India is questioning the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 04.01.2022 (annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension attributing certain allegations and irregularities committed by him causing loss to the Government and as such, his conduct comes under misconduct and, therefore, exercising power provided under Rule 36(1) of Madhya Pradesh State Municipal Service (Executive) Rules, 1973, (For short, 'Rules of 1973') placed him under suspension by the respondent no.2. The challenge is founded mainly on the ground that the order of suspension has been passed by the authorities, not competent to do so.

Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rule 36 of Rules of 1973 under which the petitioner has been placed under suspension is not applicable for the petitioner because the said rule is applicable for the persons who are the member of M.P. State Urban administrative Services. He has submitted that Rule 36 is very specific, which reads as under:-

"36. Suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. -(1) If having regard to the nature of charges and the circumstances in any case, [appointing authority or the Disciplinary authority] is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place, under suspension the member of the service against whom disciplinary proceedings is contemplated or is pending, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

86 of the act pass an order placing him under suspension.

(2). a member of the service detained in police custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period longer than forty-eight hours, shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention under this rule.

(3) a member of service against whom a criminal charge is pending may at the discretion of the appointing authority, be placed under suspension until the termination of the proceedings, if the charges are connected with his duties as a municipal servant or is likely to embrace him in the discharge of his duties in the Municipality or involves moral turpitude."

He has further drawn attention on the definition provided under sub- rule (f) of Rule 2, which reads as under:-

"(f). 'Member of the service' means a member of the Madhya Pradesh State Urban administrative Service."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the order o f suspension can be passed by the appointing authority and the Disciplinary authority prescribed under the Rules of 1973 and as per the definition provided of appointing authority and Disciplinary authority, in sub-rules (b) and (d-i) of Rule 2, which read as under:-

"(b). 'appointing authority' means the State Government in respect to additional Director, Joint Director, Chief Municipal Officer class-a, Chief Municipal Officer, class-B, and Chief Municipal Officer class-C."

(d - i) . "Disciplinary authority' means the authority competent under these rules to impose upon a member of the service any of the penalties specified in rule 31."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has very categorically submitted that petitioner is not an employee of Urban administrative Department and as such, he is not 'Member of the service' and, therefore, his services are not governed with Rule 36 of the Rules of 1973. according to the learned counsel, petitioner is the employee of the Council and vide order passed by the Joint Director, Urban administration and Development, approved by the Collector on 03.11.2020, he was appointed as In-charge, Chief Municipal Council, Nagar Parishad, Bakaho and also he was one of the members of the Committee against whom irregularities have been alleged. according to the learned counsel, petitioner can be suspended exercising the power provided under Section 329 of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities act, 1961. Section 329 provides as under:-

"329. Power to demand pu