With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard.
Petitioner has challenged the revisional order dated 13/03/2012, whereby the revising authority remitted the mater back to the competent authority to provide adequate opportunity in the enquiry and decide the matter in accordance with law.
2. It is challenged on the ground that respondent No. 4 has not disclosed correct and complete facts before the revisional authority. The revisional authority presumed that no opportunity was given to the respondent No. 4, whereas he was served with a show-cause notice and he filed his reply. However, during the course of hearing, there was a consensus amongst the learned counsel for the parties that the question of de-notification of Panchayat Karmi is covered by the judgment of Division Bench delivered in 2008 (3) MPHT 26 (Lalla Prasad Barman v. State of M.P).
3. In the light of said judgment, it cannot be disputed that for the purpose of de-notification of Panchayat Karmi, the statutory provisions of Panchayat in D & A Rules, 1999 are to be followed. Admittedly, in the present case, charge-sheet has not been issued nor enquiry as envisaged in the said rules has been conducted. Thus, I am not impressed with the argument of the petitioner when the aforesaid legal position is crystal clear. In my opinion, the revisional authority has not committed any error of law inasmuch as remitted the matter back for conducting proper enquiry before the competent authority. However, it is profitable to quote the paragraphs No. 8 & 9 of Lalla Prasad Burman's case (supra):-
“8. Nonetheless Rule 4 of the Rules, 1999 provides that the Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or Disciplinary Authority may place a member of Panchayat Service under suspension where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence involving moral turpitude is under investigation, inquiry or trial. In the present case, since an inquiry into the charges of misconduct against the appellant has been ordered by the Collector, Shahdol, a disciplinary case is pending against him. That apart a criminal case for violation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act is also pending against the appellant. Hence, the Appointing Authority or the Disciplinary Authority or any authority to which the Appointing Authority is subordinate have the power to place the appellant under suspension. But instead of placing the appellant under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings and pending the criminal trial, the Collector, Shahdol has reverted the appellant to the rank of Panchayat Karmi or has removed him from the post of Panchayat Secretary contrary to the provisions of the Rules, 1999 as discussed above.
9. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 30.07.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge, quash the order dated 29.06.2007 of the Collector, Shahdol as well as the order dated 16.07.2007 of the Commissioner, Rewa Division, and leave it open for the Collector to pass an order of suspension of the appellant in accordance with Rules, 1999”.
4. In the light of said judgment, it is crystal clear that the Division Bench has given liberty to the competent authority to place the employee under suspension, if required. In the light of said judgment, in the opinion of this Court, it will be open for the competent authority to place the respondent No. 4 under suspension, if required and the finding of the revisional authority in this regard in the operative portion of the impugned order will not come in the way of the department. The other portion of the order of the revisional authority is upheld.
5. Petition is disposed of.
Comments