State Government possesses disciplinary jurisdiction and control over municipal employees appointed as In-charge Chief Municipal Officers.

The petitioner, substantively appointed as a Revenue Sub-Inspector under the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968, was serving as the In-charge Chief Municipal Officer (CMO) at Nagar Palika Parishad, Sabalgarh

On July 10, 2020, Respondent No. 2 issued a charge-sheet against the petitioner alleging financial embezzlement committed during his tenure as In-charge CMO

The petitioner challenged the charge-sheet (Annexure P/1) and the related communication (Annexure P/2) via this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction as he was not a member of the State Municipal Service

1. Whether the Additional Commissioner/State authorities have the jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings and issue a charge-sheet to an employee holding the post of In-charge Chief Municipal Officer, despite their substantive post being in the municipal service

The court primarily applied Sections 89 and 90 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. Specifically, Section 89(1-A) grants the State Government powers of control over persons appointed to act as Chief Municipal Officers.

Section 90(4) stipulates that any person appointed to perform the duties of a CMO shall be subject to the same liabilities, restrictions, and conditions as a regular CMO

Interpretation of the term "control" is a broad connotation including disciplinary jurisdiction and the power to suspend as established in Anand Sharma v. State of M.P. (2007) 5 MPHT 85.

The principle that "In-charge" officers fall under the State’s disciplinary umbrella as affirmed in Ikrar Ahmed v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 600/2018) and Mahesh Kumar Wore v. State of M.P. (W.A. No. 1213/2019).

The court reasoned that even if an employee’s substantive appointment is a lower post (e.g., Revenue Inspector), the moment they are appointed as In-charge CMO, they come under the direct administrative and disciplinary "control" of the State Government per Section 89(1-A) of the Act

The court dismissed the petitioner’s argument that his service was governed solely by the 1968 Rules, noting that Section 90(4) explicitly attaches the "liabilities" of a CMO to any person performing those duties

By applying the interpretations from Anand Sharma, the court found that since the State Government has the power to appoint an In-charge CMO, it inherently possesses the "power of control," which includes the authority to issue charge-sheets for financial irregularities

Consequently, the Additional Commissioner was held to be a competent authority for the impugned action

The court found no merit in the petition, held that no case was made out to warrant interference under Article 226, and dismissed the writ petition