Madhya Pradesh High Court
Salil Dhagat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-2494-2018
(SALIL DHAGAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 09-02-2018
Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
Heard.
sh Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 17.01.2018 on the ground that the respondent No.3 is not e ad competent authority to place the petitioner under suspension. Admittedly the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the competent Pr authority/respondent No.1. It is submitted that as per circular dated a 20.10.2008 and 13.01.2005 (Annexure-P/3), the petitioner should not hy have been placed under suspension.
ad Prayer is opposed by Shri Dwivedi, learned Dy. Advocate General.
M During the course of argument, Shri Tiwari fairly admitted that of the respondent No.3 is competent to initiate minor penalty proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 10 of M.P. Civil Services rt (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to ou as "the Rules of 1966"). He is also competent to inflict minor C punishment on the petitioner.
As per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1966, the following authorities can h ig place the petitioner under suspension:
H
(i) Appointing Authority,
(ii) the authority to whom the Appointing Authority is subordinate,
(iii) Disciplinary Authority &
(iv) the authority which is empowered by the Governor to place the employee under suspension by a general or special order.
The Disciplinary Authority is defined in Rule 2(d) of the Rules of 1966.
In view of this definition and on account of the fact that the Commissioner is competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 (which includes minor penalty), the said authority becomes Disciplinary Authority for the petitioner and, therefore, under Rule 9, the Commissioner is empowered to place the petitioner under suspension.
So far desirability of placing the petitioner under suspension and merits of the case are concerned, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal and, therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to examine the said aspect at this stage.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by directing the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner sh expeditiously preferably within two weeks from the date of production e of copy of this order.
ad It will be open for the petitioner to rely on the said circular before the Appellate Authority.
Petition is disposed of. Pr a C.C. as per rules.
hy ad (SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE M of rt Biswal ou C Digitally signed by SHIBA NARAYAN BISWAL Date: 2018.02.09 14:54:38 +05'30' h ig H