Point of Law: Disciplinary authority - Delegated power to impose penalties - Commissioner empowered by notification in respect of Class III officer (Tahsildar) is justified in placing him under suspension - If employee is duly suspended and departmental enquiry is initiated, his headquarter should not be changed.

ORDER :

1. Proceedings of this matter have been takenup through video conferencing.

2. The short question involved in this writ petition is whether the Commissioner, Raipur Division/respondent No. 2 (Disciplinary Authority) in exercise of his power delegated under Section 12(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called as “Rules of 1966”) is justified in placing the petitioner (Class II gazetted officer) under suspension by the impugned order dated 18.5.2016 (Annexure P1) and further justified in changing his headquarter.

3. The aforesaid question has arisen in following factual backdrop:

3.1 The petitioner was appointed on the post of Child Development Project Officer on 26.12.1996 (Annexure P2) by the State Government. He was placed under suspension by respondent No. 2 by order dated 18.5.2016, which is sought to be quashed by way of this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner's appointing authority is the State Government and respondent No. 2/Commissioner, Raipur Division is neither his appointing authority nor it is disciplinary authority and as such, power to suspend under Rule 9(1) (a) of the Rules of 1966 could not have exercised by him. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner being candidate of Scheduled Tribe, opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded to him by virtue of the circulars dated 12.6.2008 and 27.11.2012, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Return has been filed by the respondents stating inter-alia that power to suspend under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1966 has been delegated to the Commissioner by notification dated 4.8.2008 (Annexure R1) and the Divisional Commissioner has been authorized to impose minor penalties upon the members of State Civil Services, as such, the order of suspension is justified. It has also been pleaded that headquarter has rightly been changed to hold the departmental enquiry fairly in accordance with law.

5. Mr. Ashok Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner being Class II Gazetted officer his appointing authority is the State Government and the Divisional Commissioner is not disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor, as such, by notification dated 4.8.2008 (Annexure R1) the petitioner could not have been placed under suspension and in view of two circulars issued by the State Government he being member of Scheduled Tribe, opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded to him. He would rely upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Anil Kumar Jain vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2015 (1) CGLJ 232.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State, would support the impugned order and submit that by virtue of notification dated 4.8.2008 (Annexure R1) the State Government following the provisions contained in Rule 12(2) (a) & (b) of the Rules of 1966 has empowered the Divisional Commissioners to impose minor penalties upon a member of State Civil Services under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1966 and therefore, by virtue of Rule 2(d) of the Rules of 1966 he would be disciplinary authority and Rule 9(1) of the Rules 1966 also confers the power of suspension to the disciplinary authority and therefore, the Commissioner is justified in placing the petitioner under suspension and he being Class II officer covered by the notification dated 4.8.2008. He would further submit that power to change headquarter is justified to ensure fair departmental proceedings, if any, against the petitioner, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. He would rely upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of P.S. Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 27.8.2014.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost c