RENU KUMARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in this writ petition for determination is, whether the appellate authority (Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur), after having allowed the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner herein under Rule 23(i) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, 'the Rules') allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of termination passed by the Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, under Rule 29 of the Rules, is justified in exercising the review jurisdiction under Rule 29(1)(iii) of the Rules?

(2.) The aforesaid question of law arises for consideration in the following factual backdrop: -

(3.) The petitioner herein was appointed as Assistant Grade-III on compassionate basis on 25/8/1998 and on the basis of certain complaints made, the disciplinary authority (Collector) initiated departmental proceeding against her which resulted in her termination under Rule 10 of the Rules, which she questioned before the appellate authority (Commissioner) by filing appeal under Rule 23(i) of the Rules, which was ultimately granted by the Commissioner by order dated 16-6- 2014. However, thereafter, the Collector (disciplinary authority) wrote a letter to the appellate authority (Commissioner) on 4/8/2014 for reviewing its order dated 16- 6-2014, which the appellate authority (Commissioner) taken cognizance of on 8/1/2016 and ultimately, reviewed its order dtd. 16/6/2014 by setting aside the same and allowing the review on 27/2/2017 in exercise of power under Rule 29(1)(iii) of the Rules resulting in filing of this writ petition questioning the order of the appellate authority (Commissioner).