Disposed

M.R. Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC16 Jul 2014WPS/642/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a suspension order issued by the Collector under Rule 9 of the Civil Services Rules. Relying on precedent, the Court held the Collector lacked jurisdiction over a Class-II employee and invalidated the order as void ab initio, directing the disciplinary authority to conclude pending action within six months.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with a direction that the disciplinary authority conclude the pending disciplinary action within six months.

M.R. Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

^^e^

¶2

^..•••-•"IJ^.^-^-te-^-'

¶3

¶4

IN THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH

¶5

ATBH.ASPUR

¶6

W.P.fS)No. 4 ^' /2Q10

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

M.R. Pradhan S/o T.R. Pradhan, aged about 48 years, working as a Principal at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Bhaiyathan, Distt.

Surguja(C.G.)

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS

11 State of Chhatdsgarh, through: Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. ^' Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

2] Collector,

¶14

Surguja, Distt. Surguja (C.G.)

¶15

WMT PETmONUNDERARTlCLE 226 OF THE

¶16

CONSinTUTION OF INDIA

¶17

^ITT^T A y»n ^»wi.

¶18

^"'rys'^^g;^ f£2i\ '^Si'^ ti

¶19

¶20

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶21

SINGLE_BENCH_ : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

¶22

W.P_[S) No. 642 of 2010

¶23

PETITIONER M.R. Pradhan

¶24

Versus

¶25

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and another

¶26

Shri A.N. Pandey, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(16.07.2014)

¶29

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 06/01/2010 passed by the Collector, Surguja whereby the said officer has placed the petitioner under suspension; in exercise of power under Rule 9 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1966. At the time of suspension petitioner was working as Principal of Govt. Higher Secondary School, Bhaiyathan which is a Class II Gazetted post.

¶30

It is putforth by the petitioner that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the State Govt. under ScheduteJI of Rules of 1966, therefore, the Collector not being the appointing authority or an authority to which the petitioner is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or special order, had no jurisdiction to place the petitioner under suspension.

¶31

In the matter of N.K. Panch Bhave Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others,\N.P. (S) No. 2141 of2010 decided on 11thAugust 2010 this Court has held thus in para 7 of the order:-

¶32

"7. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the

¶33

parties and after going through the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rutes of 1966 and the notification dated 23/05/1996 and

¶34

!' :!'^l^^-;:^;'i ':!.'.. ;t:i"--w'1 -i^

¶35

•- a^.-

¶36

4/08/08, I am of the considered opinion that the Collector is not competent to exercise the power of suspension in relation to the petitioner, who holds a Class-11 post. The ratification of the order of suspension by the State Govt. vide order dated 28/04/2010 would not validate the order passed by the Collector which is withoutjurisdiction and void at its inception. It is well settled that void order could not be validated by subsequent approval/ratification. If there was any exigency warranting suspension of the petitioner, such order of suspension could be passed either by the appointing authority of the petitioner or by the authority to whom his appointing authority is subordinate or authority on whom such power of suspension has been conferred by general or spec/a/ order of the Governor in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 9 of the Rules pf 1966. From the notification dated 4/8/08, it is ctear that such power has been conferred on the Divisional Commissioner and the Collector has been conferred power of suspension only with regard to Class-111 and Class-IV employees in view of notification dated 23/05/1996"

¶37

]n the present case, the operation of the impugned order has been stayed by this Court on 11/02/2010, thus the impugned order has not been acted upon for last about 4% years.

¶38

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the disciplinary authority shall conclude the disciplinary action pending against the petitioner as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. The interim order passed earlier by this Court shall remain in operation during pendency ofthe enquiry proceed[na._

¶39

Sd//-

¶40

Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

¶41

b-.

¶42

M.R. Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R. Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh and 2 Others Vs Chandan Lal Katare

Mina Sahu Vs the Chief Executive Off. Palari Jan.

Smt.shashi Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Dhanesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Prem Shankar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Lochan Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.