Phool Singh Parste Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Phool Singh Parste vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 19, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1048831

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1048831
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jul 19, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Phool Singh Parste

Advocate Shri. V.D.S. Chouhan

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....department and collector is not competent to issue the charge sheet and conduct an enquiry. this argument of the petitioner advanced in w.p.no.9669/2012 was accepted and inter order of stay was granted by this court on 4.7.2012 but during the cours.of hearing of this writ petition, smt. sharda dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of this court a notification issued by the state government on 23.5.1996 by which the state government has delegated the powers of suspending the class iii employee under rule 9 and impose minot penalty under rule 10. the said notification is made applicable to all class iii employees working in any department except the police department. accordingly, it is argued that once the collector is empowered to impose a minot penalty, argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted. if that be so, collector is to inform the delinquent employee that he is proceeding to take action and is conducting an enquiry for taking action and proposing to impose a minot penalty. if the charge sheet annexure p/2 is taken note of, it is seen that there is no indication to this effect in the charge sheet instead proceeding are being conducted under rule 14 meaning thereby that the collector is proposing to impose major penalty. keeping in view the aforesaid, further proceeding into the charge sheet annexure p/2 dated 16.11.2011 shall remain stayed. however, the collector or the disciplinary authority is granted liberty to modify the proceeding indicating the intention to take proceeding for imposing a minot penalty under rule 10 on the basis of power delegated to the collector. c.c.as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge mrs.mishra

Full Judgment

W.P.No.10968/2012 19-7-2012 Shri V.D.S.

Chouhan , learned counsel for the petitioner.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.within one week returnable in four weeks.

Inviting my attention to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9669/2012, Shri V.D.S.

Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector of the District concerned is not competent to initiate departmental enquiry in accordance to the provisions of M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 as the petitioner is a Teacher in the Tribal Welfare Department and Collector is not competent to issue the charge sheet and conduct an enquiry.

This argument of the petitioner advanced in W.P.No.9669/2012 was accepted and inter order of stay was granted by this Court on 4.7.2012 but during the couRs.of hearing of this writ petition, Smt.

Sharda Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court a Notification issued by the State Government on 23.5.1996 by which the State Government has delegated the powers of suspending the Class III employee under Rule 9 and impose minot penalty under Rule 10.

The said notification is made applicable to all Class III employees working in any department except the Police Department.

Accordingly, it is argued that once the Collector is empowered to impose a minot penalty, argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

If that be so, Collector is to inform the delinquent employee that he is proceeding to take action and is conducting an enquiry for taking action and proposing to impose a minot penalty.

If the charge sheet Annexure P/2 is taken note of, it is seen that there is no indication to this effect in the charge sheet instead proceeding are being conducted under Rule 14 meaning thereby that the Collector is proposing to impose major penalty.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, further proceeding into the charge sheet Annexure P/2 dated 16.11.2011 shall remain stayed.

However, the Collector or the disciplinary authority is granted liberty to modify the proceeding indicating the intention to take proceeding for imposing a minot penalty under Rule 10 on the basis of power delegated to the Collector.

c.c.as per rules.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.Mishra

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Phool Singh Parste vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education