Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jayraj vs The Security Printing And Minting ... on 17 September, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27188
1 WP-33912-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 17th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 33912 of 2025
JAYRAJ
Versus
THE SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF INDIA
LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Patwa - Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
ORDER
In the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is working in the post of Junior Technician with the respondents, is challenging the order of suspension dated 12.8.2025 passed by respondent No.3 Jt. General Manager, BNP, Dewas, on the ground that the order is passed by the incompetent authority and the same is in gross violation of Rule 20 of the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd (SPMCIL) Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2020.
Considering the aforesaid submissions, the notices were issued, and standing counsel for the respondent was granted time to file a reply.
The respondents have filed the reply and submitted that the competent authority for the post of the petitioner to pass an order of suspension is the Deputy General Manager, however, since the Deputy General Manager was not posted in the respondent No.3, therefore, the order was passed by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARGHESE MATHEW Signing time: 18-09-2025 14:22:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27188 2 WP-33912-2025 higher authority i.e., the Joint General Manager. He referred to the provisions of Rule 20 as well as Schedule 1-A appended to the Rules. He relied on the General Conditions mentioned after the table in Schedule 1-A. The General Conditions No.2 and 3 read as follows:-
"2. Where the Authority specified in this Schedule does not exist, the powers may be exercised by higher Authority.
3. The Authority specified in this Schedule shall exercise the powers conferred on them irrespective of whether such Authority is the Disciplinary Authority or not under any rule."
The respondents have further stated that by Annexure R/3 dated 21.4.2025, the competent authority, considering the aforesaid contingency, has appointed the Joint General Manager, Technical as the disciplinary authority for the post of the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the authority is incompetent and cannot pass an order of suspension in view of Clause 3 of the General Conditions. He argued that the higher authority would mean only the authority which are specified in the Schedule as disciplinary authority and appellate authority and the Joint General Manager has not been specified in the said Schedule either as disciplinary authority or appellate authority; therefore, the order is without jurisdiction. He further argued that Annexure R/3 has not been issued with the approval of the competent authority. As per Rule 3(e), the Competent Authority means an authority empowered by the Board of Directors by any general or special rule or order to discharge the function or use the powers specified in the Rule or order. The Disciplinary Authority means an authority specified in the Schedule Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARGHESE MATHEW Signing time: 18-09-2025 14:22:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27188 3 WP-33912-2025 appended to these rules and competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 23.
After hearing learned counsel for parties, upon perusal of the General Conditions 2 and 3, it is clear that in a contingent situation where the competent authority is not available, the higher authority can exercise the powers. This Court does not find any substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the power of a higher authority could have been exercised only by the authorities which are specified in the Schedule as disciplinary authority or appellate authority. The Rule 2 is independent of Rule 3. Rule 2 deals with the situation where the authority specified in the Schedule does not exist, the powers may be exercised by higher Authority, whereas condition No.3 deals with the powers of the authority specified in the Schedule, stating that they can exercise the powers irrespective whether such authority is disciplinary or not under any Rule. Thus, condition No.3 cannot be read with condition No.2.
In regard to the other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of the Joint General Manager who had issued the suspension order appointing him as disciplinary authority vide annexure R/3 is without approval of the competent authority ie. the Board of the Corporation has also no merit Upon perusal of the order Annexure R/3, it is clear that the said order has been issued with the approval of the competent authority. In view of the aforesaid, this Court held that the order of suspension has been passed by the competent authority. Counsel for respondents argued that against the order of suspension, there is a provision Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARGHESE MATHEW Signing time: 18-09-2025 14:22:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27188 4 WP-33912-2025 of appeal under Rule 32 of the Rules.
In view of the aforesaid, the liberty is granted to the petitioner to resort to the remedy of appeal in accordance with law on the grounds available to him except on the ground of competence.
With the aforesaid limited liberty, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE VM Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARGHESE MATHEW Signing time: 18-09-2025 14:22:05