AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 374 wordsThis writ petition is directed against the order dated 30/12/2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Surajpur by which petitioner has been placed under suspension in exercise of Rule 9 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
Mr. Harish Khuntiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, would make a solitary submission that petitioner is a Class III Officer working on the post of Assistant Development Extension Officer and since petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 2, therefore, only respondent No. 2 or the District Collector would have the jurisdiction to place petitioner under suspension under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1966, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, would submit that though petitioner is a Class III Officer and he has been appointed by respondent No. 2, but he has been placed under suspension by respondent No. 4 after taking due approval of the Collector, Surajpur, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
Admittedly, petitioner is a Class III Officer working on the post of Assistant Development Extension Officer with Zila Panchayat, Surajpur and he has been placed under suspension by respondent No. 4. True it is, that the Collector, Surajpur, being the disciplinary authority, has the jurisdiction to place Class III and Class IV employees under suspension. In the present case, the impugned order of petitioner's suspension has not been passed by the Collector and no approval or direction would suffice that the said order has been passed by the Collector. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 30/12/2021 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the Collector, Surajpur to proceed in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the issuance of the chargesheet. It will proceed in accordance with law as the chargesheet has not been challenged in the present petition.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).