AMRIT KUMAR MEDHE Vs. STATTE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in this writ petition is, whether the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) is competent to place the petitioner-Patwari under suspension under Rule 9(1) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 ? if yes, whether the appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order of suspension is maintainable in view of the bar created under Sec. 46(e) of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 ?

(2.) The petitioner, who is a Patwari, has been placed under suspension by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dongargarh i.e. respondent No. 3 vide impugned order dtd. 09/11/2021 (Annexure P/1) under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1966 finding his conduct in breach of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The impugned order has been called in question on the ground that since Collector is the Appointing Authority of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dongargarh has no jurisdiction to place the petitioner under suspension and consequently, the impugned order is not appealable in view of the bar created under Sec. 46(e) of the Land Revenue Code, 1959.

(3.) Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that admittedly, by virtue of Sec. 104(2) of the Land Revenue Code, 1959, Collector is the Appointing Authority of the petitioner, therefore, Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) cannot place him under suspension. Even otherwise, Sec. 46(e) of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 bars the appeal relating to appointment under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 104 or sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 106, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.