Sole Official's Absence Can't Hamper Entire Mandi Board's Work: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Suspension
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the suspension of an official by the Managing Director of Krishi Mandi Board, who was acting in place of the Additional Director who had been recently transferred, ruling that an officer's absence cannot hamper the working of the entire board. Referring to the provisions of the MP Agricultural Produce Market Act 1972 Justice Subodh Abhyankar in his...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the suspension of an official by the Managing Director of Krishi Mandi Board, who was acting in place of the Additional Director who had been recently transferred, ruling that an officer's absence cannot hamper the working of the entire board.
Referring to the provisions of the MP Agricultural Produce Market Act 1972 Justice Subodh Abhyankar in his order observed:
“It is apparent that as per sub-section (4) of Section 42-D of the Act of 1972, the powers of superintendence and control have been vested in the Managing Director, over all the officers and employees of the Board. In such circumstances, this Court is also of the considered opinion that when a particular officer is not available to discharge his duties, such duties can certainly be looked after by the Managing Director himself in his discretion, because absence of an officer cannot hamper the working of the entire Mandi Board. Thus, on account of transfer of the Additional Director and vacancy of his post, if the order of suspension has been passed by the Managing Director while exercising its powers of superintendence u/s. 42-D (4) of the Act of 1972, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed while passing the same.”
The Court was hearing a petition by an Assistant Sub-Inspector at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pandhana who was suspended by Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipanan (Mandi) Board, on the ground that the chargesheet had been filed against him under provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the Managing Director had no jurisdiction to pass the order of suspension, as the said power vested with the appointing authority of the petitioner, i.e., the Additional Director.
Instead of filing a reply, the Managing Director filed an application for dismissal of the petition on the ground that the order had been passed by the competent authority and a remedy of appeal is also available to the petitioner under Section 59 (1) of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam. It was stated that under Section 59 of the Act of 1972, the Managing Director can exercise his powers for suspension also.
It was further contended that the Additional Director had been transferred and in such situation, no illegality was committed by the Managing Director in exercising his powers. It was also submitted that powers were exercised by the Managing Director under Section 42-D(4) of the Act of 1972 which provides that the powers of superintendence and control over all the officers and employees of the Board shall vest in the Managing Director.
After hearing the parties, the Court noted that the order of suspension was passed by the Managing Director by invoking Rule 35 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Mandi Board Seva Viniyam.
The Court further noted that the Rule was amended in 2002, and the word “Managing Director” was substituted with “Appointing Officer/Disciplinary Authority”. However, the respondents also placed on record the order of transfer of the Additional Director contending that in his place, the Managing Director had exercised powers under Section 42-D of the Act of 1972 (Appointment of Managing Director and other officers and employees at the Board).
The Court further referred to Sub-section (4) of Section 42-D of the Act of 1972 which provides powers of superintendence and control to the Managing Director, over all the officers and employees of the Board.
Therefore, the Court opined that when a particular officer is not available to discharge his duties, such duties can be looked after by the Managing Director. The Court said that absence of a particular officer cannot hamper the working of the entire Board.
The petition was hence, dismissed.
Case Title: Shankar Singh Dawar Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 5737 Of 2025
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Archana Kher
Counsel for Respondent No. 2 & 3: Advocate Abhinav Dhanodkar