1 / 18 2026:CGHC:23058 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved on: 20/03/2026 Delivered on: 14/05/2026 Uploaded on: 14/05/2026 WPS No. 1746 of 2026 • Bhupendra Wardekar S/o Late Dhanuram Wardekar Aged About 42 Years Working As Chief Municipal Officer At Office Of Municipal Council Dalli Rajhara, District Balod C.G. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 2. The Director, Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 3. The Municipal Council Dallirajhara Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, Dallirajhara, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. (As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 19-02-2026) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate with Mr. Manas Vajpai, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2- State For Respondent No. 3 : : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Govt. Advocate Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate C.A.V. Order Per Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge 1. Petitioner by way of this writ petition has questioned the legality and sustainability of the order of suspension dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued by the State Government (Urban Administration and 2 / 18 Development Department) on the grounds as mentioned in the writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Social Welfare Officer by Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon vide order dated 12.04.2018. Petitioner was transferred from Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon to Municipal Council, Dallirajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh as in-charge Chief Municipal Officer. For the reasons assigned in the order Annexure P-1, order of suspension, petitioner was put under suspension invoking provisions of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “CCA Rules, 1966”) and Chhattisgarh State Municipal (Executive/Engineering/Health) Services, Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “Service Rules, 2017”). 3. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is transferred on same terms and conditions of service of the State Government from Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon to Municipal Council, Dallirajhara and therefore the Appointing Authority and the Disciplinary Authority under the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Terms and Conditions of Services of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2018”). The Mayor-in-Council or the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation is the Appointing Authority and the authority who could have passed an order of suspension. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the order impugned (Annexure P-1) is passed by the State Government who is neither the Appointing 3 / 18 Authority nor the Disciplinary Authority and therefore the order of suspension is bad in law. It is next contention of learned counsel for petitioner that in the order impugned (Annexure P-1), reference is made to Rule 33 of the Service Rules, 2017 but the order Annexure P- 1 is passed without complying provisions as provided under Rule 33. If order is to be passed under Rule 33 then it can be after getting concurrence of the Appointing Authority and the Disciplinary Authority, if the disciplinary proceeding is pending against the servant. Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing nor any document(s) has been provided and therefore the order of suspension passed against petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner is an employee appointed by the Municipal Corporation as such the Commissioner is having the power to conduct departmental enquiry and if it is found that the petitioner while working in Municipal Council has committed any misconduct, the State Government could have got the concurrence for initiation of departmental enquiry. The order of suspension could not have been passed till the enquiry is pending against the employee. Suspension of petitioner based on the report of preliminary enquiry, which was neither supplied to petitioner nor opportunity of hearing was given. He would submit that in view of the violation of applicable service rules to the petitioner, in the facts of the case, the order of suspension is bad in law, hence, it be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for petitioner. He would further submit that the writ petition being bereft of merit, it be dismissed. Petitioner though was an employee of Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, however, looking to the administrative exigency, petitioner is 4 / 18 transferred from the office of Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon to the office of Municipal Council, Dallirajhara as in-charge Chief Municipal Officer. When petitioner was discharging his duties as in- charge Chief Municipal Officer, he committed gross negligence towards his duties and for that negligence he was served with a show-cause notice dated 29.10.2025 and 15.01.2026. Despite issuance of notice, petitioner was not brought improvement in his conduct. It is contention that looking to the conduct and not showing any improvement by petitioner, Director, Directorate of Urban Administration and Development sent a propsoal for suspension to Respondent No. 1/ State Government and based on the said recommendation, which is dated 16.01.2026, the State Government has taken action. Suspension of petitioner is after following due process of law according to the applicable service rules and relevant Act. He next contended that apart from the several grounds, even if the submission of learned counsel for petitioner is to be accepted that petitioner is an employee of Municipal Corporation than also the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 433 read-with Section 58 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1956”) has framed Rules of 2018. Referring to Rule 15 of the Rules of 2018. Other conditions of service not specified in these rules shall be applicable from time to time to government employees of equivalent grade. Sub-rules of Rule 15 provides for applicability of CCA Rules, 1966 as also Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. He next contended that the State Government has formulated Rules of 2013 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 86 read- with Section 355 of the Chhattisgarh Municipality Act, 1961 and 5 / 18 according to Rules of 2017 the Appointing Authority is the State Government. The order of suspension passed by the authorities is in strict compliance of the provisions applicable to the facts of the case and as such the writ petition is devoid of substance and it be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 would adopt the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents-State. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 7. First submission made by learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is initially appointee of the Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon and therefore if any action is to be taken against petitioner of suspension then it is to be by the Commissioner or the Mayor-in-Council and not the State Government. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is transferred from Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon to Municipality, Dallirajhara as in-charge Chief Municipal Officer. The order of transfer of petitioner as in-charge Chief Municipal Officer is not put to challenge and he accepted the order dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure R-1) and joined the transferred place. On the date of issuance of order of suspension undisputedly petitioner was working as in-charge Chief Municipal Officer, Municipality, Dallirajhara and service of the employee working in the office of Municipality are governed by the Service Rules, 2017, more so when, petitioner has been appointed in Municipality, Dallirajhara by way of transfer as provided under Rule 6of the Service Rules of 2017. Rule 6 provides for method of recruitment which can be by direct recruitment, selection 6 / 18 through a competitive examination on the basis of merit, by promotion of the members of service or by transfer/ deputation of persons who hold any substantive capacity of such post under such service as may be specified in this behalf. Under Schedule-I of Service Rules of 2017, the Chief Municipal Officer to be appointed in the Municipalities according to their grade and it provides for Chief Municipal Officer “AA” Grade, Chief Municipal Officer “A” Grade, Chief Municipal Officer “B” Grade and Chief Municipal Officer “C” Grade. Chief Municipal Officer “A” Grades are Class-I officer; “B” Grades are Class-II officers and “C” grades are Class-III officers. Pay scale of Social Welfare Officer in the establishment of Corporation under the Rules of 2018 and the pay- scale of the Chief Municipal Officer “B” Grade under the Service Rules, 2017 is one and the same. 8. Undisputedly, petitioner is posted under Municipality, Dallirajhara by way of order of transfer passed by the State Government and therefore petitioner has been recruited in the establishment of Municipality, Dallirajhara by way of transfer. Service Rules of 2017 is made applicable to other member of service without prejudice to the generality of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 and conditions of service in Rule 3 would apply to persons recruited to the service in accordance with the provisions of these rules apart from other categories of the employees as mentioned therein. 9. Rule 7 of the Service Rules of 2017 deals with appointment in service and provides that all appointment to the service, after the commencement of these rules, shall be made by the Appointing 7 / 18 Authority and no such appointment shall be made except after selection by one of the methods of recruitment specified in rule 6. As discussed above, petitioner is recruited and posted in Municipality, Dallirajhra. Services of which are governed under the Service Rules of 2017 as the transfer of petitioner is by the State Government, depicting from Annexure R-1. Petitioner was transferred along with other employees vide order dated 27.08.2024. Under Service Rules of 2017, the Appointing Authority is defined to be the Government of Chhattisgarh and the order of suspension is also passed by the State Government. 10. So far as the ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner that as the order of suspension is passed referring Rule 33 of the Service Rules, 2017 also along with CCA Rules, 1966 then the concurrence of the Appoiting Authority and the Disciplinary Authority before suspension is necessary which is not followed and further that the suspension can only be where disciplinary proceedings are pending. The Respondent- State Government in its reply has in categorical terms pleaded that the Director has issued notices to petitioner as to why the Departmental Enquiry proceedings should not be initiated, vide letter dated 29.10.2025 and 15.01.2026 asking him to submit its reply for the reasons as mentioned therein. He also contended that the Deputy Director, Directorate of Town Administration and Development had forwarded a letter dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure R-3) proposing the suspension of petitioner. There was a proposal of Director for suspending the petitioner which was accepted and order of suspension has been passed by the State Government. Service Rules of 2017 has 8 / 18 been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 86(2) and Section 355 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961. 11. The letter proposing suspension, issued by the Director also proposes for initiation of disciplinary proceeding and in the order of suspension there is clear mention that conduct of petitioner herein is a misconduct under Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965, from which it is apparent that the suspension order is passed alleging misconduct and mentioning that the enquiry proceeding has to be initiated and therefore Rule 33 of the Service Rules of 2017 is to be read suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry if it is to be read along with the provisions under the CCA Rules of 1966. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Nayak v. Union of India, reported in (1972) 1 SCC 332 has observed thus: 41. In S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India [AIR 1967 SC 1274 : (1967) 2 SCR 566] allegations were made against a member of the Board of Revenue. The State Government placed him under suspension under Rule 7 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The present Rule 3 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, came into existence in place of Rule 7 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Rule 3 is in identical language. In Govinda Menon case, it was contended that the order of suspension was bad because there was no formal order of the Government for instituting disciplinary proceedings. The order of suspension stated that preliminary inquiries had shown prima facie that the officer is guilty of corruption, nepotism and other irregularities of grave nature. The order further indicated these features. The detailed enquiry into the charges was in progress. The evidence was to be collected. In the interest of the proper conduct of the enquiry it was necessary that the officer should not be allowed to continue in that post. “The officer is suspended till the disciplinary proceedings 9 / 18 initiated against him are completed”. This Court on reading the order of suspension held that it showed that the Government had accepted the proceedings and had decided to go forward with the disciplinary proceedings and there was no formal order necessary to initiate disciplinary proceedings. This Court also held in Govinda Menon case that the word “charges” occurring in Rules 5(2) and 7 of the 1955 Rules corresponding to Rules 8 and 3 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, did not have the same meaning. The word “charges” in Rule 5(2) of the 1955 Rules corresponding to Rule 8 of the 1969 Rules, refers to definite charge or charges which are reduced into writing whereas the words “having regard to the nature of the charges and the circumstances in any case” occurring in the present Rule 3 and the corresponding Rule 7 of the 1955 Rules have a wider meaning denoting accusation or imputations. The ruling in Govinda Menon case , is that there is power of the Government to suspend a member when disciplinary proceedings in the shape of inquiry are contemplated and the order of suspension in the background of charges and circumstances amounts to initiation of disciplinary proceedings. 42. In the case of Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs v. Tarak Nath Ghosh [(1971) 1 SCC 734 : AIR 1971 SC 823] this Court had to consider whether suspension of a member of the Service would only be ordered after definite charges had been communicated in terms of the old Rule 5(2) which corresponds to the present Rule 8 or whether the Government was entitled to place an officer under suspension even before that stage had been reached after the preliminary investigation had been made into the conduct of the officer concerned following allegations of corrupt practice levelled against him. The earlier decisions of this Court were referred to and thereafter it was said “Merely because the order mentioned that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against the respondent, as compared to Rule 7 which contains phrases like ‘the initiation of disciplinary proceedings’ and the ‘starting of such proceedings’ we cannot hold that the situation in the present case had not reached a stage which called for an order of suspension. In substance disciplinary proceedings can be said to be started against an officer 10 / 18 when complaints about his integrity or honesty are entertained and followed by a preliminary enquiry into them culminating in the satisfaction of the Government that a prima facie case has been made out against him for the framing of charges. When the order of suspension itself shows that Government was of the view that such a prima facie case for departmental proceedings had been made out the fact that the order also mentions that such proceedings were contemplated makes no difference. Again the fact that in other rules of service an order of suspension may be made when ‘disciplinary proceedings were contemplated’ should not lead us to take the view that a member of an All India Service should be dealt with differently. The reputation of an officer is equally valuable no matter whether he belongs to All India Service or to one of a humbler cadre. It is the exigency of the conditions of service which requires or calls for an order of suspension and there can be difference in regard to this matter as between a member of an All India Service and a member of a State Service or a Railway Service”. 13. In case of Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs v. Tarak Nath Ghosh, reported (1971) 1 SCC 734 has observed thus: 8. “Suspension” according to the Oxford Dictionary means “the action of suspending or condition of being suspended; the action of debarring or state of being debarred, esp. for a time, from a function or privilege; temporary deprivation of one's office or position”. A master can, subject to the contract of service, ask his servant not to render any service without assigning any reason but this would not be by way of punishment and the master would have to pay the servant his full wages or remuneration in such an eventuality. As Halsbury puts it: “Whether or not the master has power to suspend a servant during the duration of the contract of service depends upon the construction of the particular contract. In the absence of any express or implied term to the contrary, the master cannot punish a servant for alleged misconduct by suspending him from employment and stopping his wages for the period of the suspension.” 11 / 18 (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edn., Vol. 25, Article 989, p. 518.)” Rule 7 of the Service Rules expressly provides for suspension of a member of the Service for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings. When serious allegations of misconduct are imputed against a member of a Service normally it would not be desirable to allow him to continue in the post where he was functioning. If the disciplinary authority takes note of such allegations and is of opinion after some preliminary enquiries that the circumstances of the case justify further investigation to be made before definite charges can be framed. It would not be improper to remove the officer concerned from the sphere of his activity inasmuch as it may be necessary to find out facts from people working under him or look into papers which are in his custody and it would be embarrassing and inopportune both for the officer concerned as well as to those whose duty it was to make the enquiry to do so while the officer was present at the spot. Such a situation can be avoided either by transferring the officer to some other place or by temporarily putting him out of action by making an order of suspension. Government may rightly take the view that an officer against whom serious imputations are made should not be allowed to function anywhere before the matter has been finally set at rest after proper scrutiny and holding of departmental proceedings. Rule 7 is aimed at taking the latter course of conduct. Ordinarily when serious imputations are made against the conduct of an officer the disciplinary authority cannot immediately draw up the charges: it may be that the imputations are false or concocted or gross exaggerations of trivial irregularities. A considerable time may elapse between the receipt of imputations against an officer and a definite conclusion by a superior authority that the circumstances are such that definite charges can be levelled against the officer. Whether it is necessary or desirable to place the officer under suspension even before definite charges have been framed would depend upon the circumstances of the case and the view which is taken by the Government concerned.” 14. From the aforementioned two decisions, it is apparent that it is for the appropriate authority to consider whether to place any employee under 12 / 18 suspension based on complaint, followed by the preliminary enquiry, recording satisfaction that prima facie case has been made out against such employee. 15. In the case at hand, petitioner was earlier issued two show-cause notices by the Director, Directorate of Town Administration and Development Department and further the Director has made proposal for suspension of petitioner based on the material forwarded to the State Government by the Director, the impugned order Annexure P-1 of suspension is passed. Suspending an employee is not, imposition of punishment upon him but it is an order of administrative nature. The courts cannot exercise its power like an appellate authority over the decision taken by the disciplinary authority. The scope of interference with the order of suspension is very limited when it is brought to the notice that the order of suspension is passed by the authority who is having no authority under law to pass such an order. 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147 has observed thus: “14. It was submitted that the scope of judicial review is limited in cases of suspension for the reason that passing of suspension order is of an administrative nature and suspension is not a punishment. Its purpose is to only forbid the delinquent to work in the office and it is in the exclusive domain of the employer to revoke the suspension order. The Tribunal or the court cannot function as an appellate authority over the decision taken by the disciplinary authority in these regards.” 17. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, in particularly Rule 6 of Service Rules of 2017 and unchallenged order of transfer dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure R-1), the submission of learned counsel for 13 / 18 petitioner that the State Government is having no authority to pass order of suspension is not sustainable. 18. Sofar as the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is an employee of Municipal Corporation and according to the Rules of 2018 the Appointing Authority is the Mayor-in-Council or the Commissioner is concerned, I find it appropriate to extract relevant provisions of the Act of 1956 under which Rules of 2018 is framed, the rules governing the service of employees of the Corporation is framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 58 read with Section 433 of the Act of 1956. Section 58 of the said Act, being relevant in the facts of the case, is extracted below for ready reference: “58. Appointment and conditions of Service of Corporation Officers and servants.- (1) Subject to the rules made by the State Government in respect of the Set-up, Strength, Recruitment, Appointment, Pay-Scales, Allowances and other conditions of service of officers and servants of the Corporation, the corporation shall appoint such officers and servants as may be necessary for the efficient performance of the functions of the Corporation: Provided that- (i) the power of appointing any person on a municipal post which carries a maximum scale of pay as the State Government may, from time to time, by an order in writing specify, shall vest in the Mayor-in-Council or the Commissioner; (ii) any appointment made within his power by the Commissioner shall be reported for information to the Mayor-in-Council. (iii) every appointment to be made by the Mayor- in-Council shall be subject to the prior confirmation of the State Government. The decision of the State Government in this behalf shall be final. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in emergent situations, the Mayor-in- Council may make adhoc appointments for a period not exceeding six months, with prior permission of the State Government. 14 / 18 (3) The State Government may depute to any post under the corporation carrying maximum scale of pay as the State Government may, from time to time, by an order in writing specify such servants of the State Government as it may consider necessary. (4) The terms and conditions of deputation of servants of the State Government, including disciplinary control shall be such as may be prescribed. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any rules or bye-laws made there under, the State Government may, subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (6) transfer on deputation (any officer or servant of a Municipal Corporation) to any other Municipal Corporation and it shall not be necessary for the State Government to consult either the Corporation or the Officer or Servant concerned before passing an order of transfer on deputation under this sub-section. (6) The officer or servant transferred under sub-section (5) shall- (a) have his lien on the post held in the parent Corporation; (b) not be put to disadvantageous position in respect of pay and allowances which he would have been entitled to had he continued inn the parent Corporation; (c) be entitled to deputation allowance at such rate as the State Government may by general order specify; and (d) be governed by such other terms and conditions including disciplinary control as the State Government may, by general or special order, specify. Explanation :- for the purpose of sub-section (3) & (4) - i.e. 1. "Town and Country Development Authority" means the Town and Country Development Authority constituted under section 38 of the Madhya Pradesh* Nagar tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (No. 23 of 1973) ; 2. "Government undertaking" means an undertaking wholly are partly owned or control by the State Government.” 19. Perusal of aforementioned provisions would show that the Appointing Authority is Mayor-in-Council or the Commissioner but according to the provision of Section 58, the approval is to be granted by the State Government on the proposal forwarded by the Municipal Corporation to give appointment to any officer or the employee. Sub-section 2 of 15 / 18 Section 60 provides for penalties to be imposed and sub-section 5 of Section 60 specifies the authority to impose penalties under sub- section 2 of Section 60. Sub-section 6 of Section 60 further clarifies imposition of major penalties to be only by the Mayor-in-Council with the previous consultation of Divisional Commissioner. 20. From the aforementioned provisions available under the Act of 1956 and the Rules of 2018 it is explicitly clear that the State Government has not been mentioned to be Appointing Authority or a Disciplinary Authority so as to inflict punishment upon the officer or the employees of the Municipal Corporation. 21. So far as the other submission of learned counsel for the State based on the order of suspension of petitioner to have been passed by the State Government is concerned, primarily it is not under challenge in this writ petition and secondly under the Rules of 2018 there is no specific provision for suspension of employee of the Municipal Corporation. Rule 15 of the Rules of 2018 provides for Other Conditions of Service. Sub-rule 1 and sub-rule 2 of Rule 15 are extracted below for ready reference: “15. Other conditions of service.- (1) The Corporation shall be competent to determine the procedure and method under which medical treatment, provident fund and pension may be decided. Other conditions of service, not provided for in these rules, shall be such as are applicable from time to time to Government employees of equivalent grade. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the following rules, as applicable to Government servants, as amended from time to time, shall also apply to the employees of the Corporation, namely: (a) Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules (Volume One and Two) (b) Chhattisgarh Travel Allowance Rules (c) Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 16 / 18 (d) Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (e) Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 22. Under Rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the disciplinary authority has been envisaged, it is also extracted below for ready reference: “12. Disciplinary authorities. (1)The Government may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 on any Government servant. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (1), but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 may be imposed on- (a) a member of State Civil Service by the appointing authority or the authority specified in the Schedule in this behalf or by any other authority empowered in this behalf by a general or special order of the Governor; (b) a person appointed to a State Civil post by the authority specified in this behalf by a general or special order of the Governor, or [xxx] [Omitted by Notification No. 503-CR-437-I-(iii) 72, dated 25-2- 1972.] by the appointing authority or the authority specified in the Schedule in this behalf. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule :- (a) no penalty specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 shall be imposed by any authority subordinate to the appointing authority: [Provided that the High Court shall have the power to impose all the penalties except penalties as specified in clause (vi) (so far as it relates to reduction in rank i.e., post of service), and clauses (vii) to (ix) of Rule 10.] [Added by Notification No. C-6-3-98-3-I, dated 20th May, 1998.] (b)where a Government servant who is a member of a service, is temporarily appointed to any other service or post, the authority competent to impose on such Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 shall not impose any such penalties unless it has consulted such authority, not being an authority subordinate to it, as would have been competent under sub-rule (2) to impose on the Government servant any of the 17 / 18 said penalties had he not been appointed to such other service or post. Explanation. - Where a Government servant belonging to a service or holding to a service or holding a State civil post of any class, is promoted, whether on probation or temporarily to the service or civil post of the next higher class, he shall be deemed for the purposes of this rule to belong to the service of, or hold the State civil post of such higher class. 23. Under the Act of 1956, Section 420 provides for ‘Power to demand punishment or dismissal’, which is extracted below for ready reference: “420. Power to demand punishment or dismissal.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if in the opinion of the Government any officer or servant of the Corporation is negligent in the discharge of his duties the Corporation shall, on the requirement of the Government, suspend, fine or otherwise punish him and if in the opinion of the Government he is unfit for his employment the Corporation shall dismiss him.” 24. The aforementioned provision starts with ‘notwithstanding anything contained in this Act’, therefore it is having the overriding effect on all other provisions of the Act as well as the subordinate legislation including the rules framed under it. Rules of 2018 which is pressed upon by the learned counsel for petitioner is framed in exercise of the power under Section 433 read with Section 58 of the Act of 1956. Being so, Section 420 is having the overriding effect and the State Government is having the jurisdiction to issue charge memo to the employee of the Municipal Corporation as in the case at hand petitioner being the Assistant Engineer and an employee of the Municipal Corporation. Rule 12 of the CCA Rules, 1966 also provides that the Government may impose any of the penalty specifying in Rule 10 on any government servant and sub-section 2 of Rule 12 starts with 18 / 18 ‘Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (1), but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 may be imposed. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 12 talks of ‘no penalty specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 shall be imposed by any authority subordinate to the Appointing Authority, subject to exception as provided in the proviso’. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2018 also contain non obstante clause and made applicable to CCA Rules, 1966 to the employees of the corporation. 25. If the provisions of Section 86 and Section 420 of the Act of 1956 with Rule 12, Rule 15(2) of Rules of 2018, which provides for applicability of the CCA Rules, 1966 to the employees of the Municipal Corporation with non obstante clause and Rule 12 of CCA Rules, 1966 are read conjointly then also the State Government is having power and the authority under the rules as discussed above to pass an order of suspension. 26. For the foregoing discussion and the aforementioned provisions and the act and Service Rules of 2017 and Rules of 2018, in the opinion of this Court, there is no error or illegality in passing of order of suspension against petitioner by the State Government. 27. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of substance which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA Date: 2026.05.14 17:08:44 +0530