A.K. Jadhav
Vs. State of M.P. & Ors [1997] INSC 345 (26 March 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
O R D
E R Leave granted While the appellant was working as a Tehsildar, a trap was
laid on March 20, 1996 Pursuant to the information of his demanding and
accepting an illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/- which is not in consonance
with the dignity of the post he held nor is it a legal remuneration. On March 21, 1996, the commissioner suspended the
appellant pending investigation. The appellant questioned the competency of the
commissioner which was negatived by the Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench
by order dated October
14, 1996 made in OA
No. 2193/96. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
Shri Shiv
Sagar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that by virtue of
definition of "appointing authority" under Rule 2(a) of the Madhya
Pradesh Civil services (CCA) Rules, 1966 (for short, the 'Rules'), the
appointing authority of the Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars being the state
Government, the commissioner was devoid of jurisdiction or power to suspend the
appellant, pending investigation. In support hereof, he seeks to place reliance
on the judgment of this court in U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad &
Ors. vs. Sanjiv Rajan [(1993) suppl. 3 SCC 483]. The question for consideration
is:
whether
the contention is legally tenable? It is true that under Rule 2(h) "
service" means the Madhya Pradesh Junior Administrative Service comprising
of Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars. The appointing authority in relation to
Government servant under Rule 2(a) means "(i) the authority empowered to
make appointments to the services of which the Government servant is for the
time being included; or (ii) the authority empowered to make appointments to
the post which the Government servant for the time being holds; or (iii) the
authority which appointed the Government servant to such service, grade or
post, as the case may be; or (iv) where the Government servant having been a
permanent member of any other service or having substantively held any other
permanent of the Government, the authority which appointed him to that post,
whichever authority is the highest authority," But in respect of the
disciplinary proceedings and " suspensions", part IV contemplates
various authority" to mean the authority competent under the said rules to
impose on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 10.
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 provides that the appointing authority or any authority
to which it is subordinate or that behalf by the Government by general or by
special order, may place a Government servant under suspension :- "(a)
"Where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is
pending, or (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is
under investigation, enquiry or trial:
Provided
that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the
appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing
authority the circumstances in which the order was made." Thus it could be
seen the competent authority to suspend an officer is appointing authority or
any subordinate authority or any subordinate authority on whom the power of
disciplinary authority has been conferred by the Government by general or
special order. The Government amended the Rules by notification dated August 8, 1977 which was published in the state
Gazette on October 7,
1977 empowering the
subordinate officers which reads as under:
"Class
III (Non-Ministerial) ; The column (3) indicates the state Government or the
commissioner of the division in which the delinquent official was posted during
the relevant period. The column (4) indicates all powers except removal,
dismissal and reduction in rank." Thus, it could be seen that the commissioner
has been delegated of the powers of the Governor under the Rules, empowering
the commissioner in that behalf to take the appropriate action including power
to suspend Naib- Tehsildar. Since crime No. 49/96 registered against the
appellant pursuant to the trap, is pending and is under investigation, by
operation of Rule 9, the commissioner is empowered to keep the appellant under
suspension. The decision in Sanjiv Rajan's case has no bearing on the
controversy in question. Therein, when an accused was kept under suspension
pending investigation into the charge of defalcation, the order of suspension
made in the first instance had lapsed and thereafter second order came to be
passed. The High court had held that the state had no power to pass second
order of suspension in the same manner and accordingly it allowed the appeal.
This court interfering with the order of the High court had held that the
Government had the power to pass second order of suspension, even though the
first order had lapsed and there was no restriction on the competent authority
to pass such second order but that order of suspension would be subject to the
final result. The facts therein, as stated earlier, are inapplicable to the
present facts situation.
The
appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2