IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE WRIT PETITION No.20817 of 2022 Between:-

VED PRAKASH YADAV, S/O SHRI NARAYAN SINGH, AGED 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK, R/O VILLAGE: JOHARIYA, POST KAMARARI, TAHSIL DATIA, DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

…..PETITIONER (BY SHRI PRATEEP VISORIYA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. JOINT DIRECTOR, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

…..RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI DEEPAK KHOT - GOVT. ADVOCATE )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on 30/09/2022 Delivered on 09/11/2022 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

(1) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had been directed against arbitrary issuance of charge- sheet dated 25/05/2022 by respondent No.2, who is not competent to issue the same, as the appointing Authority of the petitioner is Joint Director, Public Instructions and the charge sheet was issued by Commissioner, Public Instructions. thus, the impugned charge-

sheet is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed.

(2) Facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner, who is a Madhyamik Shikshak and is presently posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Johariya, District Datia, was served with a charge sheet on 25/05/2022, which was issued by respondent No.2, Commissioner, Public Instructions. Aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid charge sheet the present petition is filed alleging that under Rule 12 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, for Madhyamik Shikshak, there is no disciplinary authority prescribed, therefore by virtue of Rule 12(2)(b) either the appointing authority or the authority specified in the schedule is empowered to act as disciplinary authority and the power to issue charge-sheet is only vested with disciplinary authority under Rule 14. The service conditions of the petitioner are governed by set of rules known as Madhya Pradesh Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018, where under Schedule I issued under Rule 5, the appointing authority is mentioned but there is no mention of disciplinary authority, to be precise no disciplinary authority had been prescribed under the said rules, thus, the charge sheet being issued by an incompetent authority, deserves to be quashed.

(3) The counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that under the Madhya Pradesh Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018 (In short the rules of 2018), only appointing authority had been prescribed, which in the case of the petitioner is Joint Director, Public Instructions as provided under column 6 schedule I under rule 5 and since no disciplinary authority had been prescribed under the Rules of 2018, resort thereof is required to be taken of Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Services (Classification, Control & Appeal Rules) 1966 (In short “CCA Rules, 1966”), wherein it is for the disciplinary authority to draw or cause to be drawn up substance of imputation, misconduct and misbehavior, sub-rule 4 prescribes for the disciplinary authority to deliver the charge sheet and as per sub-rule 5 the disciplinary authority is to appoint the inquiry officer and as per rule 2 (d) of CCA Rules, disciplinary authority means the authority competent under these rules to impose on a government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 10, thus, since respondent No.2 is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority, he was not competent to issue the charge she