WP6258.11
Writ Petition No. 6258 of 2011(S)
20/06/2011
Shri Durgesh Singrore, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Shri S. P. Rai, learned Govt. Advocate for
the respondents No. 1 and 2.
Shri A. K. Chourasiya, learned counsel for
the respondent No. 3.
With consent of learned counsel for the
parties the matter is heard finally.
This petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is directed against the order
dated 05/07-03-2011 passed by respondent No. 3/
Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat-
Mohgaon, tahsil and district-Mandla, whereby
services of the petitioner, who was employed
Typist on contract basis, have been dispensed
with.
Facts
briefly are that, the petitioner in
response to the policy of the State Government,
appointed as Typist in Janpad Panchayat
Mohgaon, tahsil and district Mandla, by order
dated 03-02-2001 (Annexure-P/2).
Contention of the petitioner is that despite
of rendering satisfactory services, the services of
WP6258.11
the petitioner were dispensed with by order
dated 05/07-03-2011 passed by Shri V. K.
Sharma, the then Chief Executive Officer, Janpad
Panchayat, Mohgaon. It is urged that the said
Chief Executive Officer, who was placed under
suspension vide order dated 04-03-2011, passed
the order of termination with an ulterior motive
and without any authority.
To substantiate the submission regarding
suspension of said Shri V. K. Sharma, learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
the order dated 07-03-2011 passed by Collector,
Mandla wherein it is indicated that said Shri V.
K. Sharma, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad
Panchayat, Mohgaon, was suspended by order
dated 04-03-2011 passed by the Commissioner,
Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur.
On 18-04-2011 the respondents were
directed to show cause. In response whereof
return is filed by respondent No. 3 wherein it
contended that the appointment of petitioner as
Typist was not in accordance with the procedure.
It is stated in the return that the services of the
petitioner were dispensed with on the basis of
the report furnished by Audit Committee. Be that
WP6258.11
as it may.
The question which crops up for
consideration is as to whether said Shri V. K.
Sharma, the then Chief Executive Officer, Janpad
Panchayat, Mohgaon, who was under suspension
could have terminated the services of the
petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3
when faced with the aforesaid proposition,
candidly submits that an officer who is placed
under suspension loses an authority to take
administrative decision.
In the case at hand, the documents on
record reveal that said Shri V. K. Sharma while
he was discharging his duties as Chief Executive
Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mohgaon, was placed
under suspension by an order passed by the
Commissioner bearing No. 335/ l-v-pkj /2011
Jabalpur, dated 04-03-2011. Thus, from the date
of his suspension he lost the authority to pass
any administrative order. Whereas contrary to
this by order dated 05/07-03-2011 (Annexure-P/1)
he terminated the services of the petitioner
which on the face of it is without any authority.
Since the impugned order is not passed by a
WP6258.11
Competent Authority, it is non-est in the eyes of
law and has no legal force.
In view whereof, the impugned order dated
05/07-03-2011 so far as it relates to the
petitioner is hereby quashed.
The respondents are directed to reinstate
the petitioner on the post on which she was
appointed and engaged as Typist. It will,
however, be within the powers of the
respondents/Janpad Panchayat to take recourse
to law in case the services of the petitioner are
no more required due to financial crisis or any
other lawful reasons.
The petition is allowed to the extent above.
However, no costs.
(SANJAY YADAV)
JUDGE
SC