HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE AT BILASPUR IC.G.) Writ Petition No.221S of 2003 ^.cT PETI7IONER; ^ RESPONDENTS: A. Ekka, 5/o Joseph Ekka, Aged about 37years, Chief Municipal Officer, Nogsr Ponchcyct: Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.6.) Versus - 1. State of ChhattisgarH, Throughi The Secretary Environment, Town &. Countr/ Oevelopment, Mantralaya, Raipur(C6.) 2. The UnderSecretary, ISepartment of Town Administrorl-ion and bevelopment, AAantralaya, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (C.(5.) 3. Shri R.S. bongaare, S/o Not known, M present workin9 as Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat! 5akti, Oistt. Janjgir-Champa (C.6.) 1 il POST FOR OR&ER ON 17th SEPTEMBER, 2003 Sd/- '-•C.BHADOO Jtidge ll'l i ':i. HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.6.1 \v- ;M!i i:l.ll rif^ ;fK Writ Petition No.2215 of 2003 PETETrONES: A. Ekks, S/o Joseph Ekka, Aged about 37 years, Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat; Sakti, Distt. JanJ9ir'sChampa (C.6.) Versus RESPONDENT5: State of ChhattiS9arh, TTirouqh: The Se.cretary, Environment, Town <& Country Oevelopment, Mantralaya, Raipur(C.©.) The Undsr Secr'etary, bepartmentof Town Administration and Development, Mantralay-a, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (C.S.) Shri R.S. Dongsore, S/o Not known, At present workin9 as Chief Municipai Officer, Nagar Panchayat; Sakti, Distt. JanJ9ir-Champa (C.6.) Present; - Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate: Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, Deputy A.6.: Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advosxxte; For the petitioner For the State/respondents 1 & 2 For respondent No.3 Bsfore: Hon'ble Shri Justice L.C. Bhadoo OROER (Possed on /:7/<. 5eptsmber. 2003) By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of| Indta, the petitionerJias chaltenged Theorcler dated 3 F^bruary, 2003 (Annexure P-1) by which the petitioner has been suspencled and transferred and|^i.iring the suspension period his headquarterhas been kept at Bilaspur. —'— 1 j: t ILL 2. Tne petitioner's petition is that he was working as Chief Municipal Officer of Na9ar Panchciyat; Sakti and atl of a sudden, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 3 February, 2003 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, The petitionerwas served wiTh charge sheet on 08.05.2003 (Annexure P-2). The charges ars frivolous and have no substance. As per the notificution, if charge sheet is not serve£t within a period of 90 days of the suspension, then the entire proceedings become null and void. The ;hdr'ge sheet not was served on the petitioner within the stipulated period. The petitioner made a representation against that, but to no avail. The power of suspension has been| exercised under Rule 36 of the State AAunicipal Servics (Executive) Rules, 1973, which has been misused and isadeliberate exercise to humilkite the petitioner. As per the notification, charge sheet was-required to be served within 90 days. It is therefore, prayed to issue a writ of certiorar'i for quashing the order Annexure P-1 aid To issue a writ of mandamus for reinstatin9 the petitioner. 3. Return has been filed on behalf of the State/respondents 1 &2 in which it has been mentioned that the petitioner be.mg a Chief Municipal Officer is a member of the STate AAunicipal Service and his services are joverned by Chhatt'is9ar'h State AAunicipalService (Executive) Rules,1973. Rule 36 of the above Rules provides for suspension pending disciplinary proceedings and Rule 37 provides for subsistence allowance during suspension, Rule 36 orovides that if having re9ard to the nature of charges and -the circumStances in any case, the oppointing authorMy is satisfied thot it is necessarv or desirable to place, under suspension the member of the seryice against whom disciplinary proceedings iscontempiated or is pending, it may subject to the provision of sub-section (2) of 5ection86 of 1+ie Actpdss and orcier him under suspension. T^erefore, jn view of this express provisicin, which deals with the employees of the State A^unicipal Servicss, |the provisions of M.P.'Givil Services (Cloissifieation, Control A Appeal) ftules; 1966 does npt apply. ;There;fore, 90 daysj of suspension period fixed in M.P. ^t Services (Ctassificatjon, Control <& Appeal) ftules, 1966, does not iapply fo rt(iie Kil^ ^ petitioner's case. Moreover, the petitioner has been charge sheeted and departmental enquiry is pendin9 against him. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed, 4. I hme heafd the learned couhsel for 1+ie parties. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the rules for suspension and reinstatement issued by The State ©overnmenToind published in the Kajpatra (&tszetted)on 12 March, 1982. Rule 4 lays down that if the charge sheet is not served within 90 days, then the suspension of the employee will b& :revoked automatically and in the present case, the charge sheet was served on the petitioner on 93 day. Therefore the respondents ought to have revoked the suspension of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the learned counse! for the State/respondents 1 & 2 subniitted that since the petitioner was wopking os Chief AAunicipat Officer, being a member of the State Municipal Service, his services are governed by M.P. Stgte Municipdl (Executive) Rules, 1973 as adopted by the Stgte of Chhattisgarh. These rulea have been framed under Section 86 (2) of the M.P. Municipal Act; 1961. Rule 36 of the Chhatt-isgarh State Municipal Service (Executive) Rules, 1973, provides that if having re9ard to the nature of the charges ond the circumstances in any case, the appointing authority is satisfied that it is necessary or desirobie to place, under suspension the member of the service against whom disciplinttry proceedings is contemplated or is pending, it moy subject to the provisioh^of sub-section (2) of 5ecyion 86 of the Actpass and order him undersuspension. Since, there are specific rules for gbverning the servicss of the members of State -Municipal Service, the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Classifieoition, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 as cxnended by Act No.9dated 26.02.82 ci-t'ed by the learned counsel for the petitionet- are not opplicable becau^e th® services of thepetitioner are governed by the State Municipal Seryicej.: In Rule 36 of the RuleS; 1973, the time limit has not been fixed within whic()i!the charge sheet is to be served on theemployee.Inthiscase.asenquii^'^was 4 ^sf- 1% 1 i contemp!ated against the petitioner, therefore, he was suspended and from the ddte of suspension within 93 days, charge sheet has already been served. Therefore, the order of-suspension is not in ony manner contrary to the rules and since no time limit is fixed for serying The charge sheet, the petitioner is not entitied for revoking of ttie suspension order. 7. Having heard the iearned counsel for the parties, it is admitted position that at the relevant time, the petitioner was Chief Munidpai Officer :and is a member of the State AAunicipql Services cind his ssrvices dre governed by -ttie StatejMunicipal Ser-vices (Executive) Rules, 1973. Rule 36 of the Rules, 1973 provides for- suspension pending disciplinary proceedings and under the same provision the petitionerhas been suspended and in these ftules, no tiwe limit has been fixed for serving charge sheet. The only requirsment is if cny disciplinary proCeeclings are contemplated or is pending, the member of the service can be suspended. U- is admitted position that charge sheet has been served on the petitionsr. Therefore, the petitioner is hotentitled for any relief. As faras the questionof change of headquarter during the suspension period is concerned, the authorities are within tlieir right to chonge headquarter' of a suspended employee and accordingly, headquarter hctS been fixedat Bitaspur which is not arbitraryorillegai in ony manner. 5ince, there are specific rules to deal with the members of Chhattisgarh State Municipal Services, M.P. Civil Services (Classification, ControlA Appea!) Rules, 1966 does not apply in the caseof the present petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is notentitled to 1ake benefit oflthe amended provision that if eharge sheet is not seryed on the delinquent then he isentitied forautomatic reinstatement. In view of the above, the petition of the petitioner is wnrfiout any substance and devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.