Chandra Kishore Shukla vs State Of U.P. & Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 5520 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 30
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 55370 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Chandra Kishore Shukla
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Rajeev Lochan Shukla,Shikhar Awasthi
 
Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.
 

 
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Learned standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Issue notice to respondent No.4 returnable within six weeks.

List this case on 04.01.2013. By that date, respondents may file counter affidavit.

It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner holds the post of Tax Inspector and submits that he is not member of centralized service, and in effect, he is member of on-centralized service. Petitioner submits that in consonance with the provisions of Section 74 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, it is the President of the Municipal Board, who is entitled to take action against the petitioner, which is inclusive of authority to place him under suspension and to issue charge sheet etc. Petitioner submits that since the President of the Municipal Board is the appointing authority of the servants on posts in non-centralized service carrying scale of pay equal to or higher than the lowest scale of pay admissible to the clerical staff in consonance with Section 74 of the said Act, then he is the only competent authority to take action for initiating disciplinary proceeding, which is inclusive of placing an incumbent under suspension also. Petitioner submits that once the Executive Officer is not the appointing authority of the petitioner, then he has no authority to place the petitioner under suspension and initiate disciplinary proceedings. This Court has occasion to peruse the provisions of Sections 74, 75 and 76 of the aforesaid Act. There is distinction between the authority of the President and that of the Executive Officer, based on  incumbents carrying scales of pay lower than the lowest scale of pay referred to in Section 74. In view of this, once such is the factual situation, and the comments received by the learned standing counsel also does not reflect as to whether Executive Officer is the appointing authority of the petitioner or not.

In view of this let counter affidavit be filed, as prima facie the order impugned passed by the Executive Officer is without jurisdiction, as such till the next date of listing operation of the impugned order dated 09.10.2012 is directed to be kept in abeyance. However, passing of this order will not prevent the President/Chairman of the concerned  Municipal Board to take action against the petitioner.

Order Date :- 7.11.2012

SRY