Only authorized authority can exercise disciplinary powers; any order by an unauthorized entity is invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. A.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State.

2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5711 of 2025 (Mansingh Bharadwaj vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is serving as a Principal and is also discharging the duties of Block Education Officer, presently posted at Jagdalpur, District Bastar. It is alleged that the appellant submitted manipulated and incorrect information to the competent authorities in relation to the rationalization of teachers, in contravention of the instructions issued on 02.08.2024 concerning the said process. In view of the alleged misconduct and violation of Rule (i), (ii), and (iii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (for short, ‘Rules of 1965’), the appellant was placed under suspension by order dated 06.06.2025, issued by respondent No. 4.

4. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant was initially appointed to the post of Lecturer in English in the year 1995. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Principal by order dated 04.10.2018. Thereafter, he was posted as the Block Education Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), through an administrative transfer. It is further submitted that, by order dated 05.05.2025, and in compliance with the directions issued under the rationalization scheme, the appellant constituted a Block Level Rationalization Internal Committee under the chairmanship of the Assistant Block Education Officer, Jagdalpur.

5. It is further contended by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that the appellant proceeded on sanctioned leave from 02.06.2025 to 06.06.2025 to attend his nephew’s marriage at Seoni (M.P.). During this period, on 04.06.2025, counselling under the rationalization scheme was conducted in District Bastar in the appellant’s absence. On the same day, i.e., 04.06.2025, respondent No. 5 cancelled the appellant’s leave and directed him to appear before him on 05.06.2025. It is submitted that upon receiving information regarding the cancellation of his leave, the appellant immediately commenced his return journey. However, during the course of his return, he came to know that on 06.06.2025, respondent No. 4-the Collector and President of the District Level Rationalization Committee, District Bastar had passed a suspension order against him without issuing any show-cause notice or affording him an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, on 09.06.2025, the appellant reported for duty before respondent No. 5 and submitted a representation on the same day to respondent No. 3 against the suspension order. However, no response has been received from respondent No. 3 till date. Subsequently, the appellant preferred writ petition bearing WPS No. 5711 of 2025 before this Hon’ble Court, challenging the suspension order dated 06.06.2025, which came to be dismissed on 04.07.2025.

6. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that, in WPS No. 3160 of 2006, this Court, vide order dated 09.10.2014, held that the Collector of a District is not empowered under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Conduct) Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘Rules of 1966’) to place a Class II Gazetted Officer under suspension or to institute a depart