1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 12.5.2009, Annexure P-l, whereby the Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Hoshangabad, the 2nd respondent herein, has placed him under suspension in exercise of powers under Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short 'the 1966 Rules').

2. The facts which are imperative to be stated are that the petitioner, District Education Officer, was placed under election duty by order of the Competent Authority dated 30.4.2009 as per Annexure P-6. While he was assigned the election duty, the order of suspension came to be passed by the respondent No.2 on 12.5.2009.

3. Though many an averment has been putforth in the petition criticizing the order of suspension, Mr. Sujoy Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner in course of hearing restricted his submission to a singular ground that the petitioner while on election duty could not have been suspended by the respondent No.2. To bolster the said submission he has commended me to a Division Bench decision rendered in Umesh Singh Yadav v. Collector/District Returning Officer, Balaghat. 1992 MPLJ 173.

4. Mr.V.K. Shukla, learned Deputy Advocate General combating the aforesaid submission contended that the petitioner is a civil servant and his service conditions are controlled by 1966 Rules and, therefore, the respondent No.2 had the jurisdiction to put him under suspension, despite the factum that he was placed on election duty during the said period. It is also urged by him that the decision rendered in Umesh Singh Yadav (supra), is distinguishable as controversy related to different set of facts altogether.

5. At the very outset it is condign to state that there has been no dispute at the bar as regards the fact that the petitioner was placed on election duty. It is also not disputed that his services were requisitioned by the Competent Authority, incharge of Election.

6. Presently to the revalized submissions, to appreciate the rival submissions raised at the bar it is apposite to refer to section 28-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which reads as under:

"28-A. A Returning Officer, Presiding Officer, etc., deemed to be on deputation to Election Commission. The Returning Officer, Assistant Returning Officer, Presiding Officer, Polling Officer and any other officer appointed under this Part, and any Police Officer designated for the time being by the State Government, for the conduct of any election shall be deemed to be on deputation to the Election Commission for the period commencing on and from the date of notification calling for such election and ending with the date of declaration of the results of such election and accordingly, such officers shall during that period, be subject to control, superintendence and discipline of the Election Commission."

7. Be it noted, the Division Bench in Umesh Singh (supra), after reproducing the said provision has expressed the opinion as follows:"

On a plain reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the authority to take disciplinary action is vested only with Election Commission and during the period of election."

8. Submission of Mr. Shukla is that in the said case the District Returning Officer has placed the petitioner therein under suspension and also issued the charge-sheet. In that factual matrix, the Division Bench has expressed the opinion that it is the Election Commission who could have taken suitable action under section 28-A of the aforesaid Act and not the Returning Officer.

9. The distinction which is sought to be made by Mr. Shukla, in my considered opinion, is really not of any assistance to him. What has been stated by the Division Bench is that the power vests in the Election Commission for taking action against incumbents who are working during the