ORDER :

ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT, J.

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

“i) That, the charge sheet Annexure - P/1 may kindly be quashed with a further directions to the respondents not to take any coercive steps in view of the charge sheet issued by the Respondent no.2.

ii) Cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in the favour of the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet dated 25.04.2013 was issued by respondent No. 2 while exercising powers in excess of his jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the charge sheet was issued under Section 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which are not applicable to the petitioner, as the services of the petitioner are governed by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Services (Recruitment and General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1999. As per the provisions of the 1999 Rules, Part III deals with disciplinary powers, which are vested in the Chief Executive Officer; therefore, the charge sheet issued by the respondent/Collector is illegal. It is further submitted that this controversy has already been decided by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.03.2017 (Govind Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Others- W.P.4067/2011) The co-ordinate Bench in Govind Singh Yadav (supra) has held that Collector did not possess the power to impose major penalty and learned counsel for petitioner prayed other grounds too.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for State, while supporting the order impugned, opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner. It is submitted that Collector is the head of the Panchayat in a district and being head of the district and as per Notification No.C-6-7-96-3-1 dated 23^rd May, 1996, published in M.P Rajpatra (Ext.) dated 10.01.2007, Collector is empowered to take action against petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent/State relied upon order dated 13.4.2018 passed in W.P. No.13352/2017 [Shiv Prasad Uikley v. The State of Madhya Pradesh].

4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

5. Admittedly, petitioner has been appointed by Chief Executive Officer Janpat Panchayat, Bhitarwar, Gwalior by order dated 29.09.1998 and co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already considered the similar issue in Govind Singh Yadav (supra), relevant of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:

The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide Notification No.C-6-7-96-3-1 dated 23rd May, 1996, published in M.P Rajpatra (Ext.) dated 10.01.1007, the State Govt. has delegated the powers to the Collector to exercise the powers under Rule 9 to suspend and Rule 10 to impose minor penalty on all the employees of Class III and Class IV of all the departments (except Police workers) posted in their District with effect from 23rd May, 1996. The Collector has exceeded the jurisdiction by imposing the major penalty which could not have been done. The Collector had only the jurisdiction to the extend of imposing minor penalty. In the instant case, since the Collector has imposed the major penalty, the impugned order is not sustainable.

The Third submission is that the Collector is not the appointing authority of the petitioner. The Director of Agricultural is the appointing authority and, therefore, if any major penalty is required to be imposed on the petitioner that can only be imposed by the appointing authority and not by the Collector.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/State by filing the return contended that no illegality has been committed by the Collector in passing the order dated 07.10.2010 (Annexure P/2). The petition deserves to be dismissed.

Rule 10 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 is reproduced as under:-

“10. Penalties:- The