Order On Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

24/05/2024

1. Heard Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.

Also heard Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State and Mr. Rakesh Jha, Advocate for respondent No.2.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 02.05.2024 passed in WPS No.2582/2024 by which learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order dated 18.4.2024 passed by the respondent No.4-Collector-cum-Returning Officer suspending the petitioner/appellant for being negligent in discharging election duty.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner was posted as Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Kirandul, District South Bastar Dantewada (CG). On 13.4.2024 respondent No.4 issued direction for making arrangements during Parliamentary Elections, 2024, like drinking water, snacks and other facilities. Petitioner being Chief Municipal Officer was responsible for making arrangements in 21 polling booths situated within the area of Municipal Council Kirandul. However, the petitioner was found to be negligent in discharge of his duties imposed upon him by the respondent No.4 vide instructions dated 13.4.2024, therefore, respondent No.4 exercising the power under Section 20A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act of 1951’) placed the petitioner under suspension. Feeling aggrieved therewith appellant preferred writ petition which came to be dismissed vide order impugned.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that pursuant to direction dated 13.4.2024, appellant made all necessary arrangements i.e. providing meals, installation of tents etc. in polling booths within time. However, all of a sudden, without there being any complaint, respondent No.4 has placed the appellant under suspension. He submits that respondent No.2 without there being any authority and in gross violation of the provisions contained in Section 28A of the Act of 1951 has passed the impugned suspension order of the appellant. He further submits that appellant being the employee of Municipal Corporation, it is the Collector who can take disciplinary action against him and for this reason also the order impugned is liable to the interfered with. However, learned Single Judge has not taken into account the aforesaid aspects of the matter and dismissed the writ petition in a cursory manner.

5. Learned State Counsel has supported the impugned order and submits that learned Single Judge considering the provisions of law applicable to the facts of the case; decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, as quoted in the order, and the material on record, has rightly dismissed writ petition by the order impugned, which does not call for interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

6. Mr. Jha, learned counsel representing respondent No.2 would submit that District Election Officer is having power to take disciplinary action against the employees working on deputation under the Election Commission of India. Since the appellant failed to discharge the duties assigned by respondent No.4, he was rightly suspended for dereliction of duty. There is no illegality or irregularity in the suspension order which warrants interference by this Court.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal as well as writ petition.

8. Normally, an order of suspension could be interfered with only (a) if the authority who passed the order has no jurisdiction to do so; (b) if it is tainted with mala fide; or (c) if there is any violation of the statutory provision.

9. In the case at hand, it is not the case of the appellant that impugned order has been passed in violation of any statutory provision, however, the appellant has raised a ground that respondent No.4 has no authority or jurisdiction to pass the order of suspension. But a perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge would