1
W.P No.5940/2010
30.06.2010
Heard Shri Sujoy Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner, on
the question of admission.
The petitioner, who is working on the post of Assistant Grade-II
in the office of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Raisen, has filed this
petition being aggrieved by order dated 25.4.2008 whereby a charge-
sheet has been issued to him by the respondent no.2 Collector. The
aforesaid order is being challenged on the ground that the Collector
has no authority or power to issue such a charge sheet to the
petitioner as his disciplinary authority is the State Government.
The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are
that the petitioner, who is working as an Assistant Grade-II in the
office of respondent no.3, was attached to perform election duties in
the office of the District Election Officer temporarily. However, he was
not relieved by respondent no.2 despite completion of the election
work to join his substantive post and, therefore, the petitioner filed a
writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P
No.146/2010(S) and was disposed of by order dated 8.1.2010 with a
direction to respondent no.2 Collector to pass appropriate orders with
regard to repatriation of the petitioner to his original substantive post
within ten days of receipt of the order.
It is submitted that in compliance of the order passed by this
Court, the petitioner was relieved and was permitted to join his
substantive post, but the Collector, being annoyed by the filing of the
2
writ petition by the petitioner, issued the impugned charge sheet on
25.4.2008 without any authority or jurisdiction.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner’s disciplinary authority and competent authority is the State
Government whereas the impugned charge-sheet has been issued by
the Collector without any authority of law and, therefore, the same be
quashed. The petitioner has also challenged the veracity and
correctness of the charges levelled against him and submitted that the
charges being meritless, the charge sheet deserves to be quashed.
In support of his submission the petitioner has filed Annexure P-3
dated 23.5.96 by which the State Government has empowered the
Collector of the District to suspend all Class-III and IV employees
within their jurisdiction and to impose only minor punishment
mentioned under Rule 10 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules
of 1966).
It is submitted that the Collector having been conferred only
with the powers to impose minor penalties could not have issued the
impugned charge sheet wherein serious charges which may lead to
imposition of major penalty have been levelled against the petitioner.
It is settled law that this Court is not required to interfere in the
issuance of a charge sheet or to look into the correctness or veracity
of the charges levelled against an employee at the stage of issuance
of a charge sheet as the Court does not function as a disciplinary
3
authority while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India.
The allegation that the charge sheet has been issued to the
petitioner only on account of the fact that he had obtained orders from
this Court regarding his posting is perse misconceived inasmuch as
the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 25.4.2008 i.e. much
prior to the date of the order issued by this Court on 8.1.2010 directing
posting of the petitioner. The only issue required to be considered
and decided by this Court is the issue of jurisdiction raised by the
petitioner in the petition.
Rule 2(d) of the Rules of 1966 defines “disciplinary authority” to
mean the authority competent under the rules to impose on a
Government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 and,
therefore, the word “disciplinary authority” includes the authority
empowered to impose both major as well as minor penalties.
Rule 14(3) and (4) of the Rules of 1966 provides that the
disciplinary authority, where it proposes to hold an enquiry against a
Government servant, shall draw up and shall deliver or cause to be
delivered to the Government servant a charge sheet. The Rule uses
the word “disciplinary authority” which means the authority
empowered to impose any of the penalities enumerated in Rule 10
whether they be minor or major.
In view of the aforesaid provisions of the Rules, as the
Collector has been empowered to impose minor penalties
enumerated under Rule 10 by order dated 23.5.96 Annexure P-3,
4
therefore he being the disciplinary authority, has the jurisdiction and
authority to issue the charge sheet to the petitioner in view of the
provisions of Rules 2(d) and 14 of the Rules of 1966 and it cannot be
said that the Collector has no jurisdiction or authority to issue the
charge sheet under the Rules.
In view of the aforesaid analysis of the provisions of Rules 2(d)
and 14 of the Rules of 1966, the contention of the petitioner regarding
lack of jurisdiction or authority of the Collector is misconceived and is
rejected.
The petition, filed by the petitioner, is accordingly dismissed
with the observation that the petitioner shall be at liberty to take up all
objections in respect of the charge sheet before the competent
authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Rules.
C.C as per rules.
( R. S. JHA )
JUDGE
mms/-