O R D E R

(Reserved on 14.08.2024)

(Pronounced on 20.09.2024)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN These two petitions involve common questions of law and revolve on similar facts, hence, are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and documents is taken from WP 4852-2024. In WP 4852/2024, copy of suspension order is placed on record as Annexure P-6.

2. Challenge is made in the present petitions to suspension order issued under the orders of the President, M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short, referred to as “State Commission”). The petitioners in both petitions are Ministerial Cadre employees and the President is undisputedly the competent authority, but the sole dispute that arises is that whether the Officiating/Incharge President could exercise disciplinary powers, and whether the disciplinary powers are statutory powers, or are mere executive or administrative powers.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the General Administration Department of the State Government has issued a circular (Annexure P-2) dated 01.2.1964 wherein it is provided that the officer placed in current charge of the post cannot exercise statutory powers of the post like the one derived from M.P. Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, Fundamental Rules, etc. Therefore, it is argued that disciplinary power is a statutory power that cannot be exercised by the officer holding current charge of duties of Higher post.

4. It is further argued that the regular President completed his tenure on 22.10.2023 and demitted office after which the charge has been given to Judicial Member Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari by order Annexure P-1 dated 22.11.2023. It is contended that the said order Annexure P-1 has not been passed by the Governor himself but is issued only in the name of the Governor. By referring to the M.P. Consumer Disputes Redressal Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN Commission Officer/Employees Service Recruitment Rules 2021, it is contended that Rule 2 (c) thereof defines President as the President or officiating President authorized under Section 42 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (for short referred to as “Act 2019) by the Madhya Pradesh Governor, therefore, in absence of the order annexure P-1 being issued by the Governor himself, the Incharge President cannot be said to be President in terms of Rule 2 (c) of the State Rules 2021. Therefore, though he may be disciplinary authority as per Rule 21 (1) (a) of the State Rules 2019, yet in absence of order personally signed by the Governor, such Incharge/officiating President will get no powers. In sum and substance, the argument is that if the officiating President is the President in terms of Rule 2 (c), then he has to be appointed by Governor as per mandate of Rule 2 (c).

5. The learned senior counsel by referring to Rule 3(1) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (for short referred to as “Central Rules 2020”); has further stated that the Incharge President ought to be a present or former Judge of the High Court, and for this reason also, the Incharge President being a retired District Judge, is not qualified to hold the post of President even on Incharge basis.

6. Thus, it is argued that the Incharge President who has issued the suspension order is absolutely disqualified, being disqualified to hold the post of Incharge President, and also that being Incharge, otherwise could not have exercised disciplinary powers.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN

7. Per contra, it was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that as per Rule -6 of the M.P. Consumer Protection (Salary, Allowances and conditions of Service of President and Members of the State Commission and District Comm