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

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 372 · Decided: 26-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Leave Granted & Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
A.K. JADHAV 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
MARCH 26, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Se1vice Law : 
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966: 
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. 
E 
F 
G 
U.P. Rajya IVishi Utpadan Mandi Pmishad & Ors. v. Sanjiv Ra;an, 
[1993] Suppl. 3 SCC 483, held inapplicable. 
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. 
S.S. Tiwari for the Appellant. 
S.K. Agnihotri and Ms. Yogmaya Agnihotri for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
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 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 
"(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; 
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 
Thu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.