Jugal Kishore Chourasia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble the Chief Justice - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1125294
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnFeb-10-2014
AppellantJugal Kishore Chourasia
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble the Chief Justice
Excerpt:
w.a.no.1487/2013 10/02/2014 shri prashant dubey, advocate with shri shri rajesh dubey, advocate for the appellant. shri samdarshi tiwari, government advocate for the respondents/state. heard counsel for the parties. as short question is involved, the appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. this appeal takes exception to the decision of the learned single judge dated 20th november, 2013 in writ petition no.5814/2012. the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the suspension order dated 5th april, 2012 issued under the signature of collector, district katni. the said order, annexure p/2, reads thus : dk;kzy; dysdvj ftyk dvuh ¼e/;izns’k½ dz0 86@f”k{kk@2012 dvuh].fnukad 05-04-2012 vkns’k vuqfohkkxh; vf/kdkjh jktlo dvuh ds }kjk izlrqr tkapizfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij j.tqxy pksjfl;k ijh{kk l= 2010&11 esa d{kk 9 oha ds iquzx.kuk ifj.kke esa gsjkqsjh dj vuqrrh.kz fo|kkffkza;ksa dks ijh{kk izhkkjh ds :ik esa vius nkf;roksa dk fuozgu “kklu ds fu;ekuqlkj u djrs gq;s mrrh.kz fd;s tkus dk izfke n`’v;k nks’kh ik;s tkus ds dkj.k e/;izns”k flfoy lsok ¼oxhzdj.k].fu;a=.k rfkk vihy½ fu;e 1966 ds fu;e 9¼1½ ds varxzr fufgr “kfdr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, j.tqxy fd”kksj pksjfl;k ofj’b v/;kid “kkldh; mrd`’b mpprj ek/;fed fo|ky; cm+okjk dks rrdky izhkko ls fuayfcr fd;k tkrk gs a fuyacu vof/k esa j.pksjfl;k dk eq[;ky; “kkldh; mpprj ek/;fed fo|ky; ckyd cjgh ftyk dvuh jgsxk a j.pksjfl;k dks fuyacu vof/k esa fu;ekuqlkj thou fuokzg hkrrs dh ik=rk gksxh a ;g vkns”k rrdky izhkko ls izhkko”khy gksxk a dysdvj ftyk dvuh the grievance before the learned single judge was that the collector has invoked powers under the rules of 1966 which had no application to the case on hand. in the present case, however, rules of 1999, titled as the madhya pradesh panchayat service (discipline and appeal) rules, 1999 were applicable. in other words, the collector exercised the power to suspend the appellant by invoking wrong provision and thus the order was without jurisdiction. although the learned single judge accepted this plea of the appellant, went on to observe that the collector in any case had powers under rule 4(1) of the 1999 rules and for which reason it is not an order passed without jurisdiction by the collector. in our opinion, this approach cannot be countenanced, for, the collector has consciously exercised powers under the rules of 1966. if those rules had no application to the case on hand, the exercise of that power would obviously become without jurisdiction. the fact that the collector could have exercised power under rule 4 of the rules of 1999, cannot be the basis to justify invocation of wrong authority. it will be a different matter if the collector passes a fresh order by exercising powers under just provisions, but the suspension order impugned in the writ petition cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. we, therefore, set aside the decision of the learned single judge as also the impugned suspension order to the writ petition dated 5th april, 2012 while making it clear that the collector is free to exercise powers under applicable provisions of law and proceed in the matter in accordance with the law. we are informed that the charge sheet has already been served on the appellant in relation to the acts of commission and omission for which disciplinary inquiry has been constituted. in that case, the competent authority may consider of expediting the inquiry and take it to its logical end expeditiously. appeal disposed of accordingly. (a.m.khanwilkar) (krishn kumar lahoti) chief justice judge (dv)
Judgment:

W.A.NO.1487/2013 10/02/2014 Shri Prashant Dubey, Advocate with Shri Shri Rajesh Dubey, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

Heard counsel for the parties.

As short question is involved, the appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent.

This appeal takes exception to the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 20th November, 2013 in Writ Petition No.5814/2012.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the suspension order dated 5th April, 2012 issued under the signature of Collector, District Katni.

The said order, Annexure P/2, reads thus : dk;kZy; dysDVj ftyk dVuh ¼e/;izns’k½ dz0 86@f”k{kk@2012 dVuh].fnukad 05-04-2012 vkns’k vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh jktLo dVuh ds }kjk izLrqr tkapizfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij J.tqxy pkSjfl;k ijh{kk l= 2010&11 esa d{kk 9 oha ds iquZx.kuk ifj.kke esa gsjkQsjh dj vuqRrh.kZ fo|kkfFkZa;ksa dks ijh{kk izHkkjh ds :Ik esa vius nkf;Roksa dk fuoZgu “kklu ds fu;ekuqlkj u djrs gq;s mRrh.kZ fd;s tkus dk izFke n`’V;k nks’kh ik;s tkus ds dkj.k e/;izns”k flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k].fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e 1966 ds fu;e 9¼1½ ds varxZr fufgr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, J.tqxy fd”kksj pkSjfl;k ofj’B v/;kid “kkldh; mRd`’B mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky; cM+okjk dks rRdky izHkko ls fuayfcr fd;k tkrk gS A fuyacu vof/k esa J.pkSjfl;k dk eq[;ky; “kkldh; mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky; ckyd cjgh ftyk dVuh jgsxk A J.pkSjfl;k dks fuyacu vof/k esa fu;ekuqlkj thou fuokZg HkRrs dh ik=rk gksxh A ;g vkns”k rRdky izHkko ls izHkko”khy gksxk A dysDVj ftyk dVuh The grievance before the learned single Judge was that the Collector has invoked powers under the Rules of 1966 which had no application to the case on hand.

In the present case, however, Rules of 1999, titled as the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 were applicable.

In other words, the Collector exercised the power to suspend the appellant by invoking wrong provision and thus the order was without jurisdiction.

Although the learned Single Judge accepted this plea of the appellant, went on to observe that the Collector in any case had powers under rule 4(1) of the 1999 Rules and for which reason it is not an order passed without jurisdiction by the Collector.

In our opinion, this approach cannot be countenanced, For, the Collector has consciously exercised powers under the Rules of 1966.

If those rules had no application to the case on hand, the exercise of that power would obviously become without jurisdiction.

The fact that the Collector could have exercised power under rule 4 of the Rules of 1999, cannot be the basis to justify invocation of wrong authority.

It will be a different matter if the Collector passes a fresh order by exercising powers under just provisions, but the suspension order impugned in the writ petition cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny.

We, therefore, set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge as also the impugned suspension order to the writ petition dated 5th April, 2012 while making it clear that the Collector is free to exercise powers under applicable provisions of law and proceed in the matter in accordance with the law.

We are informed that the charge sheet has already been served on the appellant in relation to the acts of commission and omission for which disciplinary inquiry has been constituted.

In that case, the competent Authority may consider of expediting the inquiry and take it to its logical end expeditiously.

Appeal disposed of accordingly.

(A.M.Khanwilkar) (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Chief Justice Judge (DV)