Rakendra Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33551

1 WP No. 5334 of 2017
THE IN HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
nd
ON THE 2 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 5334 of 2017
CNR No.: MPHC030200262017
RAKENDRA SINGH TOMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.P. Singh - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati – Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):-
“(i) That, the order impugned dated 11.7.2017 contained in Annexure
P/1 passed by the Respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed with all
consequential effect and the respondents be further directed to extend
the benefits of proper pay scale to the petitioner and pay difference of
arrears alongwith interest @ 15% p.a., in the interest of justice.
(ii) Any other order or directions deemed fit in the circumstances of
the case be issued in favour of the petitioner and cost of the petition
be awarded to the petitioner.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/6/2026
9:55:03 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33551

2 WP No. 5334 of 2017
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was initially
appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak Verg III. Thereafter, services of petitioner
were absorbed as Sahayak Shikshak in the year 2010. Thereafter, services of
petitioner were again absorbed as Assistant Teacher under Madhya Pradesh
School Education Service (Teaching Cadre), Service Conditions and Recruitment
Rules, 2018. It is submitted that at the relevant point of time, petitioner was
posted as Sahayak Adhyapak and his Disciplinary Authority is CEO, Jila
Panchayat and Appellate Authority is the Collector and without considering the
aforesaid aspect, the Collector issued charge-sheet dated 05.06.2014 and
thereafter conducted enquiry and then final order dated 11.07.2017 was passed
imposing punishment of downgrading in minimum pay-scale. It is submitted that
it is the settled position that appellate authority cannot act as a disciplinary
authority, cannot issue the charge-sheet and cannot impose major punishment. It
is further submitted that as petitioner is the employee of Panchayat, therefore,
M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 are not
applicable upon petitioner and without considering the said aspect the impugned
order and charge-sheet was issued under Rules, 1966.
3. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/State while
supporting the impugned order opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for
petitioner. It is submitted that being higher authority to the disciplinary authority
certainly the Collector is empowered to issue charge-sheet and impose major
punishment.
4. No other point is raised by learned counsel for the parties.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From perusal of record, it is gathered that petitioner was initially appointed
as Samvida Shala Shikshak Verg III. Thereafter, services of petitioner were
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/6/2026
9:55:03 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33551

3 WP No. 5334 of 2017
absorbed as Sahayak Shikshak in the year 2010. Then, services of petitioner were
again absorbed as Assistant Teacher under Madhya Pradesh School Education
Service (Teaching Cadre), Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018. At
the relevant point of time, petitioner was posted as Sahayak Adhyapak and his
Disciplinary Authority is CEO, Jila Panchayat and Appellate Authority is the
Collector and without considering the aforesaid aspect, the Collector issued
charge-sheet dated 05.06.2014 and thereafter conducted enquiry and then final
order dated 11.07.2017 was passed imposing punishment of downgrading in
minimum pay-scale. True, it is the settled position that appellate authority cannot
act as a disciplinary authority, cannot issue the charge-sheet and cannot impose
major punishment. More so, as petitioner is the employee of Panchayat, therefore,
M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 are not
applicable upon petitioner and without considering the said aspect the impugned
order and charge-sheet was issued under Rules, 1966.
7. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.03.2017 (Govind
Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Others- W.P.4067/2011) has already
considered the similar issue, relevant of which is reproduced below for ready
reference and convenience:
The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
is that vide Notification No.C-6-7-96-3-1 dated 23rd May, 1996,
published in M.P Rajpatra (Ext.) dated 10.01.1007, the State Govt.
has delegated the powers to the Collector to exercise the powers
under Rule 9 to suspend and Rule 10 to impose minor penalty on all
the employees of Class III and Class IV of all the departments (except
Police workers) posted in their District with effect from 23rd May,
1996. The Collector has exceeded the jurisdiction by imposing the
major penalty which could not have been done. The Collector had
only the jurisdiction to the extend of imposing minor penalty. In the
instant case, since the Collector has imposed the major penalty, the
impugned order is not sustainable.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/6/2026
9:55:03 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33551

4 WP No. 5334 of 2017
The Third submission is that the Collector is not the appointing
authority of the petitioner. The Director of Agricultural is the
appointing authority and, therefore, if any major penalty is required
to be imposed on the petitioner that can only be imposed by the
appointing authority and not by the Collector.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/State
by filing the return contended that no illegality has been committed by
the Collector in passing the order dated 07.10.2010 (Annexure P/2).
The petition deserves to be dismissed.
Rule 10 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules 1966 is reproduced as under:-
“10. Penalties:- The following penalties may, for good and
sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a
Government servant, namely :-
Minor penalties:-
(i) Censure;
(ii) withholding of his promotion;
(iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any
pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence
or breach of orders;
(iv) withholding of increments of pay or stagnation allowance;
Major penalties:-
(v) reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a
specified period, with further directions as to whether or not,
the Government servant will earn increments of pay "or the
stagnation allowance, as the case may be" during the period of
such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period the
reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the
future increments or his pay or stagnation allowance.
Note:- The expression "reduction to a lower stage in the time
scale of pay" shall also include reduction of pay from the stage
of pay drawn by a Government servant on account of grant of
stagnation allowance, if any.
(vi) reduction to a lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or
Service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the
Government servant to the time-scale of pay, grade, post or
Service from which he was reduced, with or without further
directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grads or
post or Service from which the Government servant was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/6/2026
9:55:03 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33551

5 WP No. 5334 of 2017
reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that
grade, post or service;
(vii) compulsory retirement;
(viii) removal from service which shall not be a
disqualification for future employment under the Government;
(ix) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a
disqualification for future employment under the Government:
(xxx)”
Admittedly, the Collector, vide order dated 07.10.2010 has
imposed the penalty of stoppage of withholding of one increment with
cumulative effect which is a major penalty. From bare perusal of the
Rule quoted herein-above, it is clear that the punishment imposed
does not fall under the category of minor penalties and as such, the
Collector did not posses the power to impose major penalty. The
appellate authority without considering the application for
condonation of delay dismissed the appeal as time barred.
In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that
the impugned order of punishment imposing stoppage of one
increment with cumulative effect is a manor penalty, therefore, the
order dated 07.10.2010 (Annexure P/2) as well as order dated
04.01.2011 (Annexure P-1) are hereby set-aside. However, the
respondents are free to proceed in accordance with law if so advised.
The petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.
8. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.04.2018 passed
in WP. No.14665/2017 [Ramesh Deen Baiga Vs The State Of Madhya
Pradesh] has already held that being a higher authority to prescribed authority,
higher authority is not empowered to issue major penalty. Relevant portion of
order passed in Ramesh Deen Baiga (supra) , for ready reference and
convenience, is reproduced below:
The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant
Teacher on 27.06.1996 since then he is performing his work without
any complaint. Respondent no.4 has issued a show cause notice to the
petitioner on 16.06.2017. The petitioner filed the reply to the said
show cause notice on 19.06.2017. Respondents thereafter passed an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/6/2026
9:55:03 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33551

6 WP No. 5334 of 2017
order dated 01.09.2017 thereby suspending the services of the
petitioner. The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that
the petitioner is a Class-III employee and their appointing and
disciplinary authority is the Assistant Commissioner for the purpose
of imposing any of the major or minor penalties. The State
Government has delegated the power to take disciplinary action in
respect of Class-III and Class IV employees to the Collector. Thus, the
impugned order issued by respondent no.2 is without jurisdiction. He
further state that vide order dated 23.05.1999 the State Government
has delegated the power to the Commissioner (Revenue) within
Division to take disciplinary action against the employees of Class-I
and Class-II officers. In the present case as the petitioner is a Class-
III employee, therefore, the Commissioner (Revenue) has no
jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner. He further submits that when
the statute confers power on an authority and prescribes the mode for
exercising that power then the same has to be exercised by that
authority alone. As per the mode prescribed by the statute, the
Commissioner is neither the appointing or disciplinary authority of
the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the
order passed by this Courts in W.P. No.3380/2013 in the case of Hari
Shankar Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and Others decided on
06.03.2013 .
Respondents have filed their reply and in the reply respondents
have stated that the appointing and disciplinary authority of the
petitioner is the Assistant Commissioner and the Rule 9 of the CCA
Rules, prescribed that the appointing authority or any authority to
which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority may place a
Government servant under suspension. In the present case, the
Assistant Commissioner is the appointing authority which is
subordinate to the Commissioner, therefore, as per Rule 9 of the CCA
Rules, 1966, the Commissioner has power to suspend the petitioner.
Respondents have further submits that the petitioner was negligent in
discharging his duties and on account of the negligent act of the
petitioner, the Government has suffered the lost of Rs.1,45,000/-.
Respondents have further stated that the suspension is not a
punishment, therefore, before passing the order of suspension no
opportunity of hearing is required to be given.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner was
appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher which is a Class-III post.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/6/2026
9:55:03 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33551

7 WP No. 5334 of 2017
The State Government has issued a circular dated 02.08.1999 thereby
delegating the powers for imposing of minor punishment to the
Division Commissioner in respect of Class-I and Class-II employees.
As per the said circular, the Commissioner is not entitled to place the
Class-III employees under suspension. The competent authority to
place the petitioner under suspension is the Collector. The powers
under Rule 9 and Rule 10 of the CCA Rules, 1966 have been
delegated to the Commissioner in respect of Class-I and Class-II
employees. In the present case, the Commissioner has passed the
order dated 01.09.2017 thereby placing the petitioner under
suspension. The said order is challenged by the petitioner on the
ground that the petitioner being a Class-III employee and, therefore,
the Commissioner has no power to suspend the petitioner. The
contention of learned Government Advocate that as per Rule 9 of the
CCA Rules, the appointing authority or any other authority to which
it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority may place a
Government servant under suspension cannot be accepted because in
the present case, the Assistant Commissioner of Tribal Welfare
Department is the appointing authority and the Assistant
Commissioner is the subordinate to the Commissioner of that
Department and not the Commissioner of Revenue Department.
This Court in the case of Hari Shankar Shukla (supra) has
held as under-:
“I have considered the respective submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner is a
ClassIII employee. From the order dated 23.05.1996, it is
apparent that the powers under Rule 9 and Rule 10 of the
Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Classification, Control &
Appeal) Rule, 1966 in respect of Class-III & Class-IV
employees, have been delegated to the Collector and thus, the
Collector is the competent authority to place the petitioner
under suspension. It is well settled in law that when a statute
confers power on an authority and prescribes the mode for
exercising that power, the same has to be exercised by that
authority alone and it has to be exercised only in the mode
which is prescribed by the statute. The power cannot be
exercised by a higher authority. Any other mode of
performance is necessarily forbidden. It is equally well settled
in law that if the power conferred on the authority is exercised
by that authority on the dictates of higher authority, the same
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/6/2026
9:55:03 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33551

8 WP No. 5334 of 2017
is vitiated in law. [ See : Commissioner of Police Vs.
Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 and Chairman-cum-
M.D., Coal India Ltd. Vs. Ananta Saha, 2011 AIR SCW
3240].”
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated
01.09.2017 is hereby set aside. However, the Collector is at liberty to
take action in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.”
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint Action Committee of AIR
Line Pilots' Association of India (ALPAI) And Others Vs. Director General
of Civil Aviation And Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435 has held as under:
“ 26. The contention was raised before the High Court that the
Circular dated 29-5-2008 has been issued by the authority having no
competence, thus cannot be enforced. It is a settled legal proposition
that the authority which has been conferred with the competence
under the statute alone can pass the order. No other person, even a
superior authority, can interfere with the functioning of the statutory
authority. In a democratic set-up like ours, persons occupying key
positions are not supposed to mortgage their discretion, volition and
decision-making authority and be prepared to give way to carry out
commands having no sanctity in law. Thus, if any decision is taken by
a statutory authority at the behest or on suggestion of a person who
has no statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal.
(Vide Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commr. of Bihar [(1969) 1 SCC
308 : AIR 1970 SC 1896] , Chandrika Jha v. State of Bihar [(1984) 2
SCC 41 : AIR 1984 SC 322] , Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of
Punjab [(2001) 6 SCC 260 : AIR 2001 SC 2524] and Manohar
Lal v. Ugrasen [(2010) 11 SCC 557 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 524 : AIR
2010 SC 2210] .)
27. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Commr. of
Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji [1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC
16], Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M.
Kamalia [(2004) 2 SCC 65 : AIR 2004 SC 1159] and Pancham
Chand v. State of H.P. [(2008) 7 SCC 117 : AIR 2008 SC 1888]
observing that an authority vested with the power to act under the
statute alone should exercise its discretion following the procedure
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/6/2026
9:55:03 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33551

9 WP No. 5334 of 2017
prescribed therein and interference on the part of any authority upon
whom the statute does not confer any jurisdiction, is wholly
unwarranted in law. It violates the constitutional scheme.
28. In view of the above, the legal position emerges that the
authority who has been vested with the power to exercise its
discretion alone can pass the order. Even a senior official cannot
provide for any guideline or direction to the authority under the
statute to act in a particular manner.”
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that present petition deserves to be and is
hereby allowed and disposed of in the following manner:
(i) Impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 11.07.2017 and the charge-
sheet are hereby quashed; and
(ii) However, respondents would be at liberty to take fresh action
against petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/6/2026
9:55:03 AM