[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramraj Sen vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 December, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T J AB AL P UR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 8227 of 2024
REKESH KUSHWAHA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 14616 of 2023
SATISH KUMAR DWIVEDI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 23237 of 2023
ANUKRIT SINGH
Versus
NAGAR PARISHAD DABHAURA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 27626 of 2023
RAHUL SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12097 of 2024
K.N. SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12467 of 2024
SANJAY SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13659 of 2024
SATISH KUMAR DWIVEDI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHAND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/10/2025
11:04:02 AM
2
WRIT PETITION No. 14116 of 2024
K.N. SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16349 of 2024
SANJAY SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16839 of 2024
RAMRAJ SEN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16840 of 2024
PARASHURAM TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16841 of 2024
SMT. SUSHILA DIXIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16881 of 2024
KAMTA PRASAD KOL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 26717 of 2024
ASHANK PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 29025 of 2024
SANJAY SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/10/2025
11:04:02 AM
3
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 4854 of 2025
IN REFRENCE (SUO MOTU)
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER
WRIT PETITION No. 11998 of 2025
KAMLESH KUMAR SAKET AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13127 of 2025
K.N. SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13783 of 2025
RAKESH KUSHWAHA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saurabh Sunder - Advocate for petitioners in the respective petitions.
Shri Neeraj Singh - Advocate for petitioner in W.P. No.23237/2023.
Shri Arun Kumar Pandey - Advocate for petitioner/respondent in W.P.
No.12467/2024, W.P. No.16349/2024 and W.P. No.29025/2024.
Shri Hitendra Singh - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
Shri Rohit Jain - Advocate for respondent-Municipal Council, Dabhoura,
District Rewa.
ORDER
(Reserved on : 14.10.2025)
(Pronounced on : 09.12.2025)
The present petitions have been filed by the absorbed employees of
erstwhile Gram Panchayats, which have been merged to form newly constituted
Nagar Parishad (Municipal Council), Dabhora, District Rewa. Some petitions
have been filed by the absorbed employees, whose absorption are now being
disputed while some petitions are filed by members of the District Selection
Committee, which had been instrumental in making recommendations for
absorption of the said employees and some petitions have been filed by
members of the Scrutiny Committee, which had carried out scrutiny of cases
prior to the matter being put up before the Division Selection Committee
(DSC).
2. The officers who were part of the said committees have been charge-
sheeted and suspended in relation to their dubious activities in making
erroneous recommendations putting the State Government to a loss while
carrying out scrutiny and making recommendations by the DSC.
3. W.P. No.8227 of 2024 has been filed in the matter of enquiry being
taken up by the Commissioner, Urban Administration against the earlier
absorption already finalized by the DSC.
4. W.P. No.13659 of 2024 has been filed challenging the resolution of
President-in-Council of Nagar Parishad, Dabhora dated 26.12.2023, whereby
the President-in-Council has decided that the absorption of the employees is
being rejected by the President-in-Council ('PIC' for short).
5. In W.P. No.13127 of 2025, challenge is made by the then Chief
Municipal Officer, who held the charge for some part of time during the
relevant period in dispute at the time of absorption of the employees and at the
time when the absorbed employees were paid salary.
6. W.P. Nos. 14116 of 2024 and 12097 of 2024 have been filed by the
said officers of these committees against charge sheet and suspension
respectively, whereas W.P. Nos.12094 of 2024, 16839 of 2024, 16840 of 2024,
16841 of 2024 and 16881 of 2024 have been filed by such officers/employees
against suspension as well as charge sheet.
7. In this manner, the petitions are filed by broadly two groups of persons,
one group is of the officers and employees, who are members of the scrutiny
committee and the DSC, who have been charge sheeted and suspended or
criminal action has been proposed against them and on the other hand, the
petitioners are the absorbed employees against whom enquiry has been
instituted in the matter of absorption.
8. W.P. No.14616 of 2023 has already been disposed of finally vide order
dated 05.01.2024 and an application for recall of the said order has been filed as
I.A. No.4994 of 2024 and that matter is listed on the said I.A.
9. All other cases not mentioned above have been filed in the matter of
non-payment of salary to the absorbed employees, who have projected that
salary has not been paid to these employees despite they being absorbed way
back in the year 2021, i.e. on 25.08.2021 and the said persons having worked.In
the salary matters, salary has been paid for intermittent periods up to February,
2023 and after February,2023, no salary has been paid to the absorbed
employees.
10. Counsel for the petitioners in these cases have contended that earlier
there were 7 Gram Panchayats and these 7 Gram Panchayats namely Dabhora,
Acauriya, Magdaura, Gedurha, Kota, Panwar and Latiyar were amalgamated
into urban area and Nagar Parishad, Dabhora came into existence. It is
contended that initially notification was issued on 20.09.2018, which was
recalled on 07.03.2020, but again the constitution of the Nagar Parishad was
restored vide notification dated 02.07.2020 and thereafter, Nagar Parishad
Dabhora came into existence as a transitional urban area constituted into a
Nagar Parishad (Municipal Council).
11. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that after establishment
of the Nagar Panchayat, consideration of the employees, who were working in
the Gram Panchayats was made for absorption in the newly constituted
Municipal Council in accordance with Section 7(g) of M.P. Municipalities Act,
1961 (for short 'Act of 1961'). It is contended that a scrutiny committee was
constituted, which carried out scrutiny and the proceedings of the scrutiny
committee were produced before the DSC and after ratification by the DSC,
absorption orders of the employees working in erstwhile Gram Panchayats were
issued on 25.08.2021. However, the employees were not paid salary promptly
and they were demanding salary and for intermittent periods salary was paid to
the employees. After February 2023, no salary has been paid to these absorbed
employees and later on, the President-in-Council ("PIC" for short) passed a
resolution dated 26.12.2023, which is impugned in W.P. No.13659 of 2012
mentioning therein that the absorption has taken place without permission or
ratification or approval of the PIC and therefore, it is null and void and would
not be recognized by the PIC. It is argued that after passing of the resolution by
the PIC, which is wholly unauthorized and act without jurisdiction on part of the
PIC, there was no question for the Municipal Council to pay salary to the
petitioners, because now the Municipal Council got rid of the absorbed
employees, which was a wholly unauthorized act on part of the PIC of the
Municipal Council.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to setting up of an
enquiry under orders of the Commissioner of Urban Administration and
Development, Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, Bhopal
have argued that vide order Annexure P-2 dated 18.07.2022, placed on record as
Annexure P-2 in W.P. No.8227 of 2024, the Commissioner, Urban
Administration has instituted an Enquiry Committee in the matter of complaints
received against absorption of employees of erstwhile Gram Panchayats into
newly constituted Municipal Council and the said Committee has given its
recommendations on 18.4.2024and immediately thereafter, the officers and
employees involved in the scrutiny proceedings and DSC committee
proceedings have been placed under suspension and charge-sheeted in April,
2024. It is argued that the said act of the Commissioner, Urban Administration
in constituting Enquiry Committee is a fully unauthorized Act on part of the
said Commissioner.
13. In sum and substance, the contention of the petitioners is that the act
of the PIC in holding the absorption of the taken over employees to be null and
void is an act without jurisdiction and further, the act of the Commissioner,
Urban Administration, Madhya Pradesh in causing enquiry into absorption of
such employees is also an act that is without jurisdiction and unauthorized.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the provision for
absorption of employees is laid down under Rule 8 of M.P. Municipal Services
Pay and Allowances Rules, 1967 (for short referred to as "Rules of 1967"),
which provides for absorption of employees and makes absorption as a valid
mode of recruitment of employees in Municipal Council. It is argued that in the
aforesaid Rule 8 there is no role of the PIC in the matter, as it is not required to
ratify or approve the proceedings of the DSC. It is argued that DSC is
constituted under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1967 and against the decision of the
DSC, representation and review is made to the Divisional Commissioner of the
Division in which the Municipal Council is situated, which is as per Rule
12.Asuo-motuaction cannot be taken under Rule 12 and the action can be taken
only on application of the employee concerned. Therefore, it is argued that the
action of the PIC and of the Commissioner is not authorized under Rules of
1967.
15. The counsel for the petitioners further argued that another provision is
laid down in Section 323 of Act of 1961 as per which, powers to suspend
execution of orders and resolutions of the Council or any of its committees or
any other authority or officer or any act which is about to be done on behalf of
the Council and is limited to the interest of the Council has been given and can
be exercised by the authorities mentioned in the said Section 323. However,
neither the PIC nor the Commissioner (previously designated as Director),
Urban Administration is named as authority under Section 323 of Act of 1961
and therefore, the resolution dated 26.11.2023 passed by the PIC as well as the
enquiry instituted by the Commissioner, Urban Administration are unauthorized
and cannot be justified even in terms of Section 323.
16. It is further argued that as per Section 326 of the Act of 1961, the
State Government may cause an enquiry to be held by officer appointed by it
and it is the only provision for causing enquiry into municipal matters.
However, the Commissioner, Urban Administration does not fall within the
ambit of Section 326 as he is not the "State Government" and the power is
retained by the State Government only.
17. Contention of the counsel for the respondents was that the absorbed
employees were paid salary from 13.10.2020 to 15.06.2022 and again from
01.03.2023 to 16.06.2023, which was disputed by counsel for the petitioners on
the ground that salary has not been paid after February, 2023.
18. Counsel for the petitioners argued that some work allotment orders
are available, like Annexure P-6 in W.P. No.11998 of 2025, which show that
work was being discharged by the absorbed employees. It is further argued by
relying on Annexure I-8/2 along with I.A. No.7835 in W.P. No.13659/2024, to
contend that some of absorbed employees were suspended and if they had not
been working, then there was no question of their suspension and in fact, if they
have been suspended in April, 2024, then there was no question of their services
being terminated prior to that on 28.12.2023 vide resolution of the PIC, which is
under challenge in W.P. No.13659 of 2024.
19. While further projecting the lack of jurisdiction of the PIC and of the
Commissioner Urban Administration, it is argued that as per Rule 51(2) of M.P.
Municipal Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1968 (for
short referred to as "Rules of 1968"), the Commissioner, Urban Administration
is disciplinary authority of the employees and supervisory authority of the
Municipal Council as such. Even Rule 12 of Rules of 1967 gives power to
Divisional Commissioner and not to the Commissioner Urban Administration.
Not even Sections 323 and 326 of Act of 1961 vest any authority in the
Commissioner, Urban Administration and therefore, the act of the
Commissioner, Urban Administration in constituting enquiry and separate
proceeding drawn by the PIC in rejecting the recommendations of DSC, are
both utterly without jurisdiction and unauthorized parallel acts on part of these
two authorities.
20. It is further argued that what the respondents contend is that the
enquiry is for forming opinion and proposing action under Section 331 of Act of
1961, which is the Revisional power of the State Government. It is argued that it
is the power to be exercised by the State Government and it does not give any
power to the Commissioner, Urban Administration for causing any enquiry,
because if the State wishes to take action under Section 331, then it is the State
alone that could have ordered some preparatory or fact finding enquiry. For this
reason also, the order of the Commissioner, Urban Administration in directing
enquiry to be conducted has to be held to be unauthorized act and the enquiry be
declared to be a null and void enquiry and deserves to be quashed by this Court.
21. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that once salary was paid
for substantial period to the petitioners up to February, 2023, therefore, it cannot
be inferred that they have not worked. It was argued that as per M.P.
Municipalities Account Rules, 2018, there is a procedure for withdrawal and
disbursement of salary, which is to be followed and it is not possible that one
single officer would have drawn salary of the absorbed employees and
therefore, the act of the subsequent authorities of the Municipal Council in
stopping payment of salary is an illegal act, which deserves appropriate
command.
22. By referring to various their documents like attendance registers, etc.,
the counsel for the petitioners had projected before this Court that the
petitioners had been working in the Municipal Council, but not getting timely
payment of salary.
23. It is further argued that once the enquiry itself was unauthorized, then
on the basis of the said enquiry report the suspension order and charge sheet
issued to various officers and employees, who were having role in the matter of
recommendations of scrutiny committee and DSC are also liable to be set aside,
because these are based on findings of illegally constituted enquiry that was
ordered by the Commissioner, Urban Administration.
24. It is argued that once the statute requires something to be done in a
particular manner, then that thing has to be done in that manner, otherwise, not
to be done. For that purpose, the petitioners have relied on judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangulal Chunilal v. ManilalMaganlal,
AIR 1968 SC 822.
25. The petitioners have also referred to various paragraphs and findings
of the enquiry report which has been received pursuance to enquiry ordered by
the Commissioner, Urban Administration and submitted that the enquiry report
is either vitiated or prepared with pre-conceived notions and further that it does
not point out to any grave illegality in the manner of appointment of absorbed
employees or absorption of the employees/petitioners.
26. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently
opposed the aforesaid assertions of the petitioners and have contended that the
absorbed employees did not actually work in the Gram Panchayats because in
the Gram Panchayat there is no permanent post except that of Secretary.
Therefore, all these petitioners having failed to point out to any appointment
orders issued by the Gram Panchayats and having failed to point out that in
what capacity they were working in the Gram Panchayats, therefore, their
absorption was suspicious. It was further argued that the scrutiny committee has
found that there was only one permanent employee and all others were
temporary employees in the erstwhile Gram Panchayats, which itself creates
suspicion on the earlier recommendation of the scrutiny committee and of the
DSC.
27. The respondents have also argued that the absorbed employees
actually never worked in the Municipal Council and one Shri K.N. Singh
Baghel used to be the Chief Municipal Officer of the said Municipal Council
and during his tenure only, salary was paid and whenever he was posted as
CMO, salary used to be paid. It is further argued that in some cases it has so
happened that whenever the said Shri K.N. Singh was posted at some other
Municipal Council, then one of the absorbed employees was transferred to that
Municipal Council just to ensure payment of salary and that transfer was
without any competent approval and the transfer order itself was suspiciously
issued. It is argued that the present matter is a huge scandal in the matter of
public employment and its scale can be gauged by the very fact that the
absorbed employees even include some relatives of the members of DSC.
Therefore, it is contended that the enquiry has been rightly ordered by the
Commissioner, Urban Administration and it should not be scuttled by this
Court. If the petitioners are not at fault in the matter, then the petitioners will be
given opportunity of hearing by the authority before arriving to any final
conclusion on the basis of report of Enquiry Committee and without further
hearing the petitioners, no final order shall be passed by the authority. It is
contended that even if the petitioners apprehend that orders under Section 331
of the Act of 1961will be issued, even then those orders will be issued only after
hearing the petitioners, and not before that.
28. The counsel for respondents also argued that so far as the
competence and authority of the Commissioner, Urban Administration is
concerned, he being a senior authority of the Department of Urban
Administration, is in the position of supervisory authority and he can always
order enquiry. Even if it is held by this Court that under Section 331(2) he is not
the competent authority, then at present no final orders have been passed and
being a senior authority of the Department, he can always place the findings
collected by him before the competent authority and it would be the competent
authority alone which will pass the final orders and since no final orders have
been passed till date, therefore the apprehension of the petitioners that the
orders under Section 331will be passed by incompetent authority, is premature
and misplaced. Petitions should not be entertained on mere apprehension and
anticipation.
29. In sum and substance, the contention of the counsel for the
respondents was that even if there is no specific power vested in the
Commissioner, Urban Administration, even then being a senior authority of the
Department, he can order a fact-finding enquiry and place the findings before
the competent authority and a senior authority of the Department can always
collect the relevant facts by ordering an enquiry. The petitioners will be given
due opportunity of hearing before the competent authority passes any order on
basis of the said fact-finding report.
30. The counsel for the respondents has also argued by referring to
various documents to contend that the petitioners have never worked in the
Municipal Council even prior to 26.12.2023 when the PIC decided not to
recognize the absorption of the absorbed employees.
31. So far as the competence and authority of the PIC is concerned, the
learned counsel for the respondents was not in a position to put forth any
argument to justify the competence and authority of the PIC to discard the
resolution of the DSC in the matter of absorption of the absorbed employees.
32. In rejoinder submissions, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that
even if the Scrutiny Committee has come to conclusion that one of the absorbed
employees out of50 was permanent employee and all others were daily rated or
casual employees of the Gram Panchayats, then it is not the case where there is
a fraud or forgery with the State and at the most even if it is ultimately found
that the other taken over employees were daily rated or contingency paid
employees, then also they are entitled to be absorbed under Section 7(e) of Act
of 1961, though may be on the same status.
33. Heard.
34. In the present case, four broad issues arise for consideration-
"The first issue is whether the PIC was having authority to
discard the resolution of the DSC in the matter of absorption of
absorbed employees.
The second issue arises as to the power and authority and
competence of the Commissioner Urban Administration to order
enquiry as to the absorption ordered by the DSC. This enquiry is
a proceeding unconnected with the resolution of the PIC.
Third issue arises regarding the legality of suspensions
and charge sheets issued to officers and employees connected
with proceedings of Scrutiny Committee and DSC.
Fourth issue arises in relation to payment of salaries to the
absorbed employees."
35. So far as the question of power and competence of the PIC to discard
the resolution/decision of the DSC is concerned, no power, authority and
competence of the PIC could be pointed out by learned counsel for the
respondents during course of hearing to justify the order Annexure P-1 in WP
No.13659 of 2024.The Act does not give any remedy against the decision of the
DSC before the PIC of the Municipal Council. Even the Rules of 1967 under
which DSC has been constituted, do not give any power, competence and
authority to the PIC to review or entertain representation against the
proceedings of DSC nor give any authority to the PIC to approve and/or ratify
the recommendations of the DSC. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that the Resolution dated26.12.2023 passed by the PIC of the
respondent Municipal Council is an unauthorized resolution and the said
authority had no jurisdiction to pass such a resolution. Therefore, the resolution
of PIC dated 26.12.2023 is set aside.
36. So far as the power, authority and competence of the Commissioner,
Urban Administration is concerned, the issue was argued mainly on the ground
that whether the Commissioner, Urban Administration could have ordered
enquiry in the matter and it was argued that such enquiry could only have been
ordered by the State Government and not by the Commissioner, Urban
Administration. To appreciate the said arguments, the relevant provisions of the
Act are required to be considered and are being reproduced. Sections 323, 325,
326 and 331 of the Act of 1961 are relevant which are as under :-
"323. Power to suspend execution of orders, etc., of Council.-(1)
If, in the opinion of the Divisional Commissioner, the Collector, or any
other officer authorised by the State Govern-ment, in this behalf, the
execution of any order or resolution of a Council, or of any of its
Committee or any other authority or officer subordinate thereto, or the
doing of any act which is about to be done or is being done by or on
behalf of the Council, is not in conformity with law or with the rules or
bye- laws made thereunder and is detrimental to the interests of the
Council or the public or is causing or likely to cause injury or
annoyance to the public or any class or body of persons or is likely to
lead to a breach of the peace, he may, by order in writing under his
signature, suspend the execution of such resolution or order or prohibit
the doing of any such act.
(2) When any order under sub-section (1) is passed, the authority
making the order, shall forthwith forward to the State Government and
to the Council affected thereby a copy of the order with a statement of
reasons for making it; and it shall be in the direction of the State
Government to rescind the order, or to direct that it shall continue in
force with or without modification, permanently or for such period as it
thinks fit:
Provided that the order shall not be revised, modified or confirmed
by the State Government without giving the Council reasonable
opportunity of showing cause against the order.
325.Power to prevent extravagant establishment.-If in the opinion
of the State Government the member of persons who are employed by
the Council as officers or servants or whom the Council may propose to
employ as such or the remuneration assigned by the Council to those
persons or to any of them, is excessive, the Council shall, on the
requirement of the State Government reduce the number of those
persons or remuneration, as the case may be.
326. Enquiry into Municipal matters.-(1) The State Government
may order an enquiry to be held by any officer appointed by it in this
behalf into any matter concerning the Municipal administration of any
Council or any matter with to which its sanction approval or consent
required under this Act.
(2) The Officer holding such inquiry shall for the purposes thereof
have the powers which are vested into a Court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), in respect of the following matters :-
(a) discovery and inspection;
(b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses; and requiring the
deposit of their expenses;
(c) compelling the production of documents;
(d) examining the witnesses on oath;
(e) granting adjournments;
(f) reception of evidence taken on affidavit; and
(g) issuing commission for examination of witnesses;
and may summon and examine suomotu any person whose
evidence appears to him to be material; and shall be deemed to be Civil
Court within the meaning of Sections 480 and 482 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898).
Explanation.-For the purpose of enforcing the attendance of
witnesses the local limits of such officer's jurisdiction shall be the limits
of Madhya Pradesh State.
(3) The reasonable expenses incurred by any person in attending to
give evidence may be allowed by the officer holding the inquiry to such
person and shall be deemed to be part of the costs.
(4) Costs shall be in the discretion of the State Government and the
State Government shall have full power to determine by and to whom
and to what extent such costs are to be paid, and to allow interest on
costs at a rate not exceeding 6 per cent per annum and such cost and
interest shall be leviable as an arrear of land revenue.
331. Power of State Government of Revision.-(1) The
State Government may, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by a Divisional
Commissioner, Collector, prescribed authority or any officer appointed
or authorised by the State Government under this Act, call for the
connected records and may in doing so direct that pending the
examination of the record such order be held in abeyance.
(2) On examining the records the State Government may modify or
reverse the order of a Divisional Commissioner, Collec-tor, prescribed
authority or any other officer appointed or authorised by the State
Government under this Act as it deemed fit:
Provided that no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice
has been given to the parties interested to appeal and to be heard in
support of such order."
Apart from that, provisions of Rule 8, 11 and 12 of Rules of 1967 are also
relevant which are as under:-
"8. Absorption.-Except for posts mentioned in sub-section (4) of section 94
of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 and such other posts as
may be specified under this section and the posts of Chief Municipal
Officer, Health Officer and Engineer mentioned in sections 87 (1) and
88(1) of the said Act, the employees working on any post, of which equation
has been made as per rule 7, will be absorbed against such equated posts
as follows:-
(i) Those who have put in at least 5 years service on their present posts on
the appointed date will be absorbed against posts with which their present
posts are equated as per rule 7. Irrespective of the fact whether or not they
possess the minimum qualifications of such posts as prescribed in Schedule
III.
(ii) Those who have put in less than 5 years service on their present posts
but possess the minimum qualification for the posts as prescribed in
Schedule III with which their existing posts are equated under rule 7 will
be absorbed against such posts.
(iii) Employees other than those covered by sub-rules (1) and (if) above
will be screened by the District Selection Committee. If the Committee
considers such employees suitable for posts, against which their present
posts are equated, they will be absorbed against such posts. If such
employees are not considered suitable by the Committee, they will be
absorbed against posts in that Municipal Council which is found suitable
by the Committee. The present pay and present scale of such employees
will, however, be protected.
(iv) The order of absorption will be communicated by the Chief Municipal
Officer to each employee by his Municipal Council in the form appended to
these rules in Schedule V separately in respect of his officiating and
substantive posts. The acknowledgment of the employee in the prescribed
form with date of receipt of order as absorption by him will be kept in the
personal custody of the Chief Municipal Officer.
11. Constitution of the District Selection Committee.-(1) The District
Selection Committee referred to in clause (iii) of rule 8 shall consist of:-
(1) the Deputy Director of Local Bodies within whose jurisdic-tion the
Municipality concerned is situated-Chairman.
(ii) The Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipal Council con-cerned or
where the Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipal Council concerned is
the senior most Chief Municipal Of-ficer amongst the Chief Municipal
Officers of the Municipal Councils in the District in which the Municipality
concerned is situate, the Chief Municipal Officer next in seniority to the
said senior most Chief Municipal Officer amongst the Chief Municipal
Officers of the Municipal Councils in the district is which the Municipality
concerned in situate-Member. Secretary.
(iii) the senior most Chief Municipal Officer amongst the Chief Municipal
Officers of the Municipal Councils in the district in which the Municipality
concerned is situate-Member.
(iv) where absorption pertains to the teachers of Higher Secon-dary
Schools, the District Education Officer of the District concerned-Member.
(v) where absorption pertains to college teachers, two specialists in the
subject concerned nominated by the Kul-pati of the University to which the
college concerned is affiliated-Member.
(vi) where absorption pertains to a Principal of College an officer
nominated by the Director of Collegiate Education, Madhya Pradesh-
Member.
(2) The Chairman of the District Selection Committee shall, as he deems
necessary, have the power,-
(a) to call for such relevant service record of the individual concerned; and
(b) to consult specialists in case of technical posts].
12. Representations and applications for review.-(1)Repre-sentation
against absorptions of the employees made as per rule 8 against posts
equated under rule 7 will be submitted to the Commis-sioner of the division
in which the Municipal Council is situate within a period of 30 days from
the date of communication of the order of absorption. The decision of the
Commissioner of the Division on such representations will be final.
(2) The orders made in the case of employees absorbed according to the
provisions contained in rule 9 may, on the application of the employee
concerned made within the periods specified in sub- rule (1) be reviewed
by the State Government and its decision thereon shall be final."
37. Further, the provisions of Rule 51 of Rules of 1968 are relevant which
are as under:-
"51. Disciplinary authorities.-Subject to the provisions of the Act
and these rules the Municipal Council shall have the powers to
impose any of the penalties specified in rule 49 on any municipal
employee holding post specified in sub-section (4) of section 94 of the
Act and in the case of other municipal employees the Standing
Committee shall have the power to impose any of the said penalties
on him."
38. The post of Commissioner, Urban Administration was earlier known
as Director, Urban Administration and now with the change of nomenclature,
the authority is known as Commissioner, Urban Administration and
Development, M.P. It was argued that the Commissioner has not been vested
with the powers of State Government and therefore, the Commissioner has no
power, competence and authority either under Section323 or 326 or 331 of the
Act of 1966 nor he is the reviewing authority of the DSC proceedings under
Rule 12 of Rules of 1967.It was defended by the Counsel for the State that even
if the Commissioner is not having such powers then being a senior authority of
the Department, it can always collect material and submit it before the State
Government and the act of instituting enquiry to collect material and collect
facts cannot be stated to be unauthorized act done by the senior authority of the
Department.
39. The State, for reasons best known to it, has suppressed the relevant
delegation notifications from this Court in its reply, and it would be for the
Commissioner, Urban Administration to see whether it was inadvertent act of
the OIC of the case, or willful act to benefit the petitioners, for which he would
be at liberty to conduct enquiry.
40. As per Section 345, a specific power has been vested in the State
Government to delegate its powers. Under the said Section 345, a delegation
notification has been issued by the State Government dated26-12-1973 which is
amended from time to time and is as under:-
"Section 345:
[No. 968-6681-XVIII-II-73, dated 26th December, 1973, Published in
M.P. Rajpatra, Part II, dated 8.2.1974, pp. 109-110, and as amended
by Notfn. No. 661-1724-XVIII-75, dated 2nd September, 1975,
Published in M.P. Rajpatra, Part II, d.14.11.1975, p. 1344]. In
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and (3) of section
345 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (37 of 1961),
and in supersession of all previous notifications issued on the subject,
the State Government hereby delegates to the officers mentioned in
column (1) of the Table below the powers conferred upon it by the
said Act under the sections specified in the corresponding entries in
column (2) thereof subject to the restrictions and conditions specified
in corresponding entries in column (3) of the said Table.
TABLE
Officers Sections Restrictions and
(1) (2) condition
1.Divisional Commissioner 38(3)
39(3)
2. Director of Local Bodies 7(g)
Madhya Pradesh 9(1-b), 27
90 Up to 30 days
91 Up to 30 days
94(5)
106(2-c)
108(3)
116(3) for sanction budgets
Third proviso of Class I, and Class-II
Municipalities
121(1),(2),(3)
122(1),(2)
123(2)
166(1),(2)
231(1)
287(2)
307(6)
317(6)
323(1)
329 for suspension fine or
other punishment except
3. Collector dismissal from service
38(1)
39(1)
79(1-b)
4. Deputy Director 102(1)
Local Bodes 123(2)
183(1)
90 Up to 30 days
91 Up to 30 days
116(3) For sanctioning budgets
Third Of Class III and IV
Proviso Municipalities
41. As per the said notification, the Director of Local Bodies Madhya
Pradesh, which was the earlier nomenclature of Commissioner, Urban
Administration, has been vested with powers of the State Government under
various provisions of the Act of 1961 which includes powers under
Sections 323(1), 325 and 327 of the Act of 1961.
42. As per Section 323, powers can be exercised by the Divisional
Commissioner, Collector or any other officer(s) authorized by the State
Government and vide delegation notification dated 26-12-1973, the powers
have been delegated to the Commissioner, Urban Administration under Section
323(1). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commissioner has been doing a
totally unauthorized act in collecting evidence because that collection of
evidence can be made by him once he is the authority under Section 323(1) of
the Act of 1961 and can suspend execution of orders or resolution of the
Council or of any of its committees or any other authority or officer subordinate
thereto or if any act is not in conformity with the law, rules and by-laws and
may cause injury to the Council or to the public. In view of the Commissioner,
Urban Administration being the delegated authority under Section 323(1), it
cannot be said that he has been doing a totally unauthorized act in instituting the
enquiry.
43. Further, the Commissioner has been delegated powers under Section
325 which gives power to prevent extravagant establishment of the Municipal
Council.
44. In view of the above, it is clear that the Commissioner, Urban
Administration is duly having supervisory powers over the Municipal Council
in terms of Sections 323 and 325 and therefore he collecting evidence by
constituting an enquiry committee, cannot be said to be doing an unauthorized
act.
45. Even otherwise, if it is to be anticipated that the ultimate power will
be exercised by the State Government under Section 331, even then, since the
act of the Commissioner Urban Administration in collecting evidence by
constituting enquiry committee has not been held to be unauthorized act,
therefore, it will be open for the Commissioner, Urban Administration to either
pass an order under Section 323(1) and then place the matter before the
State Government, or to transmit his findings to the State Government straight
away and the State Government would then be at liberty to initiate proceedings
under Section 331 and it is expected that before passing any final order under
Section 331, the State Government would hear each of the writ petitioners as
Section 331 itself provides such a course of action in view of proviso to the said
section.
46. As this Court has already upheld the authority and competence of the
Commissioner to order enquiry, therefore W.P. No.8227 of 2024 stands
dismissed.
47. Now this Court proceeds to determine that whether the payment of
salary to the petitioners has been properly or erroneously stopped by the
Municipal Council. So far as the period after 26-12-2023 is concerned, it is the
date when the PIC of the Municipal Council had decided not to comply with the
recommendations of the DSC and absorption orders issued consequential to
recommendations of the DSC which were issued by the Chief Municipal
Officer. Once the PIC of the Council itself had disowned the absorption orders,
therefore after 26-12-2023 itis clear to this Court, that the Municipal Council
would not have permitted the petitioners to work despite there being absorption
orders in their favour issued by the competent authority which have not been set
aside till date.
48. Therefore, for the period after 26-12-2023, the dispute as to the
petitioners having worked or not, is irrelevant and all the petitioners are held
entitled to be paid salary from 26-12-2023 onwards, till the absorption orders or
the earlier recommendations/ decisions of the DSC are suspended/set aside in
appropriate proceedings under Act of 1961.
49. So far as the period prior to 26-12-2023 is concerned, the said issue
has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a batch of
writ appeals led by WANo.116 of 2024 decided on 25-1-2024 and the Division
Bench has held that the authority would cause an enquiry whether the absorbed
employees have actually worked or not. Therefore, for the period prior to 26-12-
2023, it is directed that the Chief Municipal Officer would cause an enquiry
within 60 days, as to whether the absorbed employees have already worked and
for the period they have already worked, salary shall be released to the absorbed
employees, if not already released, for that period.
50. So far as the petitions involving suspension and charge sheets to the
officers and employees who were involved in the proceedings of scrutiny
committee and the DSC are concerned, this Court has already found that the act
of the Commissioner, Urban Administration in ordering enquiry was a duly
authorized act on his part. Therefore, if on the basis of the findings of the
enquiry, any adverse action like suspension has been taken against the
petitioners in some of the petitions, therefore, no indulgence can be caused by
this court as the matter involves disputed questions of fact and against the
suspension orders, the petitioners are set at liberty to file appeal before the
competent authority. If such appeals are filed within 30 days from today, they
shall be decided on their own merits. The interim stay orders against suspension
orders shall continue till 30 days from the date of this order.
51. So far as charge sheets issued to some of the petitioners are
concerned, this Court is only inclined to direct that the departmental enquiry in
pursuance to the charge sheets shall remain in abeyance till the competent
authority of the State Government passes a final order on the basis of enquiry
ordered by the Director, Urban Administration, the report of which has already
been received. If the State Government accepts the said report in proceedings
under Section 323(2) or 331 of the Act of 1961 and finds that there is indeed
some illegality in the DSC or scrutiny committee proceedings, then the enquiry
will proceed further and these petitioners would be at liberty to take all such
defences as available to them in the enquiry proceedings, otherwise, the State
shall drop the enquiries.
52. So far as the Contempt Petition No.4854 of 2025 is concerned, in
view of the writ petition being finally disposed, at present the same is disposed
off. The necessary action in the payment of salary as per paragraph-48 of this
order be completed within 60 days, failing which any petitioner in WP No.
23237 of 2023 shall be at liberty to get this Contempt Petition restored.
53. So far as W.P. No.13127/2025is concerned, in this petition, direction
has been issued to FIR against Shri K.N. Singh. This Court refrains from
entering the merits of the charges. This Court is only inclined to direct that the
interim order dated 06.5.2025 shall continue till the competent authority of the
State Government passes a final order on the basis of enquiry ordered by the
Director, Urban Administration, the report of which has already been received.
If the State Government accepts the said report in proceedings under Section
323(2) or 331 of the Act of 1961 and finds that there is indeed some illegalityin
the DSC or scrutiny committee proceedings, then the criminal law will take its
own course and the police shall be at liberty to present charge-sheet before the
concerned Court. If the State decides that there was no irregularity in the matter,
then the investigating officer shall take this in consideration while preparing the
final report.
54. WP 14616 of 2023 has already been disposed on 05.1.2024, and an
application for recalling has been filed. The said petition had been disposed
with direction to pay salary, in case the absorption order is still intact, or there is
no valid impediment for payment of salary. As in this batch of petitions, all the
relevant facts and disputes have been considered, therefore, it is directed that the
operative part of final order dated 05.1.2024 shall stand modified to the extent
of para 47 and 48 of this order, which shall apply to this writ petition also.
55. In the above terms, the writ petitions are disposed off.
56. For the sake of clarity, the directions are reproduced asunder :-
i. WP No. 8227 of 2024 stands dismissed in terms of para-45
and 46 above.
ii. WP 13659 of 2024 is allowed by setting aside the PIC
resolution dated 26.12.2023 in terms of para-35 above.
iii. All writ petitions involving salary payment dispute are
disposed of in terms of para 48 and 49 above.
iv. All petitions involving challenge to suspensions and charge-
sheets are disposed in terms of para 50 and 51 above.
v. Contempt Petition No.4854 of 2025 is disposed in terms of
para-52 above.
vi. W.P. No.13127/2025 is disposed in terms of para-53 above.
vii. Application for recalling final order in WP No. 14616 of
2023 is disposed of in terms of para-54 above.
57. No order as to costs.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
Rj/nkj
