Chattisgarh High Court
Basant Kumar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 August, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 3734 of 2022
Basant Kumar Yadav S/o Late Ramjanam Yadav, aged about 55 years
Working on The Post of Incharge Principal At Govt. High School Jagima
Block Shankargarh, District: Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Department of Higher
Education Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District: Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Commissioner, Higher Education Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur
District: Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. The Joint Director Higher Education, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur
District: Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4. Collector Balrampour District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
5. District Education Officer, Balrampur, District: Balrampur Ramanujganj
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
___________________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate
For State : Mr. Akash Pandey, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order On Board
16.08.2022
1. The petitioner has filed present petition assailing the suspension
order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the Collector Balrampur, District:
Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) by which the petitioner who is
working on the post of Head Master, Government High School,
Jagima, Block: Shankargarh has been suspended by respondent No.
4.
2. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Pradhan
Pardhyapak, i.e. Head Master of the Middle School has been
classified as Gazetted Officer Class-II by the State Government vide
order dated 11.06.2008 which has been subsequently withdrawn
and the words that they will not discharge the work of dying and
disbursement of authorities has been deleted on 10.03.2017 that
means they will remain as Gazetted Class-II Officer and have all the
power of dying and disbursing authorities.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that
the Collector is not authorized to suspend the Class-II Officer in
view of the provisions contained in Rule 9 (1) (a) of Chhattisgarh
Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966, as such
the order passed by the authorities without jurisdiction. He would
refer the judgment of the coordinate bench in the case of Kumar
Paul versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others decided on
06.05.2022 in WP (S) No. 3263 of 2022, wherein the coordinate
bench of this Court in Paragraph 3 and 4 has held as under:
" 3. Admittedly, the petitioner in the instant case was
working as an Incharge Principal of the Govt. High School,
Indraprasth, Block Koilibeda. The substantive post that the
petitioner holds is that of Lecturer (LB). The post of Lecturer
(LB) is a class-II cadre post. Thus, the authority who has been
empowered to place the person of class-II cadre under
suspension is only upon the Disciplinary Authority or upon the
Divisional Commissioner. In the instant case the order of
suspension has been issued by the respondent No.3 the
District Collector, who prima-facie does not have the power to
place an officer of the class-II cadre under suspension. The
issue involved in the present case already has come up before
this Court for consideration and this Court has in as many as
three writ petitions of identical issue allowed the writ
petitions quashing the order of suspension, those are- WPS No.
3160/2006 (Anil Kumar Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh & others),
WPS No. 6590/2014 (R.P. Parihar v. State of Chhattisgarh &
others) and WPS No. 2062/2026 (Panchu Ram Thakur v. State of
Chhattisgarh & others), decided on 09.10.2014, 27.03.2015 &
21.06.2021 respectively.
4. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case
and also the judicial pronouncements made in the recent
past on the said set of facts, this Court is of the opinion that
the impugned order so far as the competency of the
respondent No.3 is concerned deserves to be interfered and
the same is accordingly set-aside/quashed reserving the
right of the State Government to take appropriate action in
accordance with the provisions of law.
4. In view of the above factual matrix and considering the power and
competency of the Collector to suspend the petitioner, it is quite
vivid that the Collector is not the competent authority to suspend a
Class-II Officer.
5. Accordingly, the suspension order dated 11.05.2022 (Annexure P/1)
is hereby quashed. However, if the State Government so desires the
competent authority may take subsequent action in accordance
with law. The quashing of the suspension order does not debar the
authorities to pass appropriate order.
6. With these observations, the petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Saurabh
