SANJAY JAIN v. STATE OF MP

O R D E R ( 17/11/2011) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order of suspension dt. 27/5/11 passed by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Corporation, Barnagar. The contention of the petitioner is that a case was registered against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act and a resolution was passed by the Standing Committee on 1/8/09 for placing the petitioner under suspension and the petitioner was placed under suspension on 14/9/09. Petitioner has further stated that the order of suspension was revoked later on on 5/11/09. However, again an order of suspension has been passed on 25/7/11. --- 2 --- Petitioner has raised various grounds before this Court. However, at the outset, he has argued that the Chief Municipal Corporation is not the competent disciplinary authority under the MP Municipal Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1968 to place the petitioner under suspension.

A reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the Municipal Council is that the petitioner has been placed under suspension as a charge sheet has been filed in the criminal case pending against him keeping in view the provisions of Rule 9 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976. A reply has also been filed by the respondent No.5 Special Police Establishment and the stand of respondent No.5 is that the petitioner has rightly been placed under suspension under Rule 9(1) of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976 as a challan has been filed in respect of a criminal case involving corruption and moral turpitude. The reply of respondent No.5 is silent on the competence of the Chief Municipal --- 3 --- Officer for placing the petitioner under suspension. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

The matter is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of the parties. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that a resolution was passed by the Standing Committee, Municipal Council, Sanwer on 1/8/09 as the petitioner at the relevant point of time, was posted at Sanwer. He was placed under suspension on account of registration of a criminal case for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act on 14/9/09. The suspension of the petitioner was revoked for the reasons best known to the respondents on 5/11/09. The respondent Chief Municipal Officer, as the petitioner is at present posted at Barnagar, has placed the petitioner under suspension, vide order dt. 25/7/11. Section 94 of the MP Municipalities Act, 1961 empowers a Municipal Council to appointing a Sanitary Inspector, a Sub Engineer, a Revenue Inspector and an Account, meaning thereby, the appointing authority and disciplinary authority in respect of the petitioner, as he is --- 4 --- holding a post of Accountant, is Municipal Council.

Rule 51 of the MP Municipal Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1968 deals with the disciplinary authorities and it provides that Municipal Council shall have the powers to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 49 or in respect of any Municipal employee holding the post specified under sub – Section (4) of Sec. 94 of the MP Municipalities Act, 1961. In the present case, no resolution was passed at any point of time by the Municipal Council and the Chief Municipal Officer who is not the appointing authority, nor the competent authority as provided under the MP Municipal Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1968 or under Rule 9 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976 has passed the order of suspension. No document has been brought on record by learned counsel for the respondent State, by the learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Council, Barnagar, nor by the learned counsel for the respondent / the Special Police Establishment before this Court --- 5 --- establishing that the Chief Municipal Officer is competent to place an accountant under suspension, nor it has been demonstrated before this Court while arguing the matter that the Chief Municipal Officer is empowered to pass the impugned order.