http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: A.K. JADHAV

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          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"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.