Education is the appointing authority as well as the disciplinary authority insofar as the petitioner's post viz., Headmaster of High School is concerned. It is well settled that only the appointing authority can initiate disciplinary proceedings and impose the order of punishment. Admittedly in this case the order of suspension was issued not by the appointing authority. However, the development that had taken place in this case, that too subsequent to the filing of the writ petition is that the second respondent, who passed the impugned order, had obtained a ratification from the competent authority viz., first respondent later. In my considered view, such ratification, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, cannot be taken into consideration, since the said action had admittedly taken place not only after filing of the writ petition, but also after getting time from this Court on 03.02.2015 to nullify the jurisdictional point raised by the petitioner. Seeking such ratification thereafter and obtaining the same from the competent authority is nothing, but an over reaching act only to defeat the point of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner and hence such act cannot be justified. As it is observed in the order made by the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 ( Mohinder Singh vs. Chief Commissioner), that the validity of the order must be judged by the reason so mentioned therein including its competency, this Court is fully satisfied that the second respondent was not having the jurisdiction to pass the order of suspension on the date when it was passed. Accordingly, the impugned order of suspension is set aside. However, this order setting aside the order of suspension will not preclude the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law.
