A.K. JADHAVversusSTATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

A                                 A.K. JADHAV
                                        v.
                             STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

                                  MARCH 26, 1997

B                 [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

            Se1vice Law :

            Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966:

c         Rules 2(a), 9 and JO-Suspension-Autho1ity competent to pass the
    orde~Tehsildm~Al/egations against of accepting illegal gratifica-
    tion-Criminal case registered-Pendi11g i11vestigation Commissioner
    suspended the Tehsildar--Order challenged 011 the ground that appointing
    authmity of Tehsildar being State Govemment, Com111issio11er was not
D   auth01ity competent to pass the orde1~Held, by operation of Rule 9 Com-
    missioner is empowered to keep the Officer under suspension.

          U.P. Rajya IVishi Utpadan Mandi Pmishad & Ors. v. Sanjiv Ra;an,
    [1993] Suppl. 3 SCC 483, held inapplicable.
E           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2665 of
    1997.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.96 of the Madhya
    Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabal Pur in O.A. No. 2193 of 1996.
F
            S.S. Tiwari for the Appellant.

            S.K. Agnihotri and Ms. Yogmaya Agnihotri for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
            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 accept -
    ing an illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000 which is not in consonance with
H   the dignity of the post he held nor is it a legal remuneration. On March
                                         372
                             A.K.JADHAV v. STATE                           373

      21, 1996, the Commissioner suspended the appellant pending investigation.   A
      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.

                                                                                  B
            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 Service (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 jurisdic- C
      tion or power to suspend the appellant, pending investigation. In sup-
      port hereof, he seeks to place reliance on the judgment of this Court in
      U.P. Rajya Klishi Utpadan Mandi Pmishad & Ors. v. Sanjfr 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 D
      of Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars. The appointing authority in relation
      to Government servant under Rule 2(a) means "(i) the authority em-
      powered to make appointments to the service of which the Government
      servant is for the time being a member or to the grade of the service in
      which the Government servant is for time being included; or (ii) the E
      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 F
      other permanent post, has been in continuous employment of the
      Government, the authority which appointed him to that service or to any
      grade in the service or to that post, whichever authority is the highest
      authority." But in respect of the disciplinary proceedings and "suspen-
      sions", Part IV contemplates various authorities. Rule 2(d) defines
      "disciplinary authority" to mean the authority competent under the said G
      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 the disciplinary or any
      authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or by
      special order, may place a Government servant under suspension :          H
    374                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A           "(a) Where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated
            or is pending, or

            (b) Where as case against him in respect of any criminal offence
            is under investigation, enquiry or trial;

B           Provided that where the other 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."

C       Thus, it cold be seen the competent authority to suspend an officer
  is appointing authority or any subordinate authority on whom the power of
  disciplinary authority has been conferred by the Governor 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,
D 1977 empowering the subordinate officers which reads as under :

            "Class III (Nor-Ministerial) : The Column (3) indicates the State
            Government or the Commissioner of the ilivision in which the
            delinquent official was posted during the relevant period. The
            column (4) indicates all powers except removal, dismissal and
E           reduction in rank. "

        Thus, it could be seen that the Commissioner has been delegated of
  the powers of the Government under the Rules, empowering the Commis-
  sioner in that behalf to take the appropriate action including power to
F 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
G 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 accord-
  ingly 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
H order of suspension, even though the first order had lapsed and there was
                          AK.JADAV v. STATE                              375

no restriction on the competent authority to pass such second order but A
that order of suspension woul<l 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.

R.P.                                                       Appeal dismissed.   B