IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 12 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 6380 of 2018 GULAB SINGH RAJAK (MALVIYA)

Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Priyank Choubey - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Hitendra Singh - G.A. for the respondent/State.

ORDER This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

i) Call the relevant records from the respondents for kind perusal of this Hon. Court.

ii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate command quashing the impugned order date 16/1/2018 (annexure P-1) and impugned order date 20.6.2017 (annexure P-2).

iii) This Hon'ble Court may direct the respondents to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner for which he is entitled.

iv) Any other relief deems fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.

v) Cost of writ petition be awarded.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was transferred from the post of Superintendent, Anusuchit Jati Boys Hostel, Sultangunj to Superintendent, Anusuchit Jati Boys Hostel, Silwani vide order dated 18.5.2015. Due to some irregularity found in the hostel, petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 15.7.2015, annexure P/4 and was served with charge-sheet dated 21.8.2015. On being not satisfied with the reply tendered by the petitioner, a departmental enquiry was instituted and the enquiry report was submitted on 16.9.2016. On the basis of enquiry report, the respondent no.3 has passed the impugned order dated 20.7.2017, annexure P/2, imposing penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect and the period of suspension was treated to be break in service.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been inflicted major penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect by the Collector, who is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1966 Rules'). It is further submitted that the Collector under delegation of powers conferred on the Collector vide notification dated 23.5.1996 has inflicted penalty upon the petitioner. It is submitted that as per notification the Collector is empowered under the delegation of power, to impose minor penalty. However, in the present case in hand, the petitioner has been inflicted major penalty. Thus, the order of punishment imposing penalty is without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that only on this count the petitioner is agitating the impugned order before this Court.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ State has submitted that the appointing authority of the petitioner is District Organizer under the Rules, which is a Class 2 post. Thus, the Collector is having the power to pass order of inflicting major penalty upon the petitioner and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

6. From perusal of the notification dated 23.5.1996 placed on Board by both the parties, it is evident that the power has been delegated upon the Collector to suspend and pass orders of inflicting minor penalties to Class III and Class IV employees of the State Government, except members of the police force. The impugned order is passed by the Collector under the delegation of power. As per the 1966 rules, the appointing authority of the petitioner is District Organizer and the disciplinary authority is District Education Officer. The order passed by the Collector under the delegation of power.

7. Rule 10 of the 1966 Rules reads as under :-

"10. Penalties.- The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely :-

Minor penalties :-

(i) Censure;

(ii) Withholding of his promotion;

(iii) recov