1 2025:CGHC:37980 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2041 of 2017  Rajendra Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Shyamlal Sinha, Aged About 50 Years Working As Assistant Teacher, At Vivekanand Vidhyapeeth, Kota, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal And Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector, Tribal Department Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Additional Collector, Tribal Department Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Vivekanand Vidhyapeeth, Through Secretary, Vivekanand Vidhyapeeth Ramkrishna Nagar, Kota, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01. 08.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased quash Annexure-P1 and Annexure P-2 and petitioner may be granted kramonnati pay scale from the date he SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.05 16:11:31 +0530 2 completed 12 years of service, with arrears, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the claim of the upgraded pay scale of the petitioner has already been extended to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would endorse the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State. 4. Now coming to the prayer made by the petitioner with regard to quashment of Annexure P/1, whereby the Additional Collector, Tribal Development, Raipur, vide order dated 21/27.10.2016, inflicted a penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 05.01.1996 at Vivekanand Vidyapeeth, which is a government-aided school. He would further submit that a department inquiry was initiated against him by respondent No. 5 according to the provisions of the Non-Government Institutions Grant Rules, 2006 (for short “Rules, 2006”). He would also submit that the inquiry could have been initiated against the petitioner after due approval of the recommendation made by the institution to the competent authority. He would contend that the ‘competent authority’ according to the Rules, 2006, is ‘District Collector’. He would further contend that in the present case, the penalty has been imposed by the Additional Collector, Tribal Development, Raipur, which is not a competent authority according to the Rules, 2006. He would pray to quash the order Annexure P/1. 6. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would contend that proper approval was accorded from the 3 competent authority, and thereafter, the enquiry report was submitted. They would further contend that the competent authority, i.e. Additional Collector, Tribal Development, Raipur, inflicted a penalty after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. They would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 8. Rule 2(4) of the Rules, 2006 defines “competent authority”. According to the definition of ‘competent authority’, it includes “Collector” and “Commissioner” (Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Development Department). Rule 2(5) of the Rules, 2006 defines ‘Collector’ and it means “District Collector” only. 9. According to Rule 9 of the Rules, 2006, to initiate a departmental enquiry, the institution is under an obligation to obtain approval of the competent authority, i.e. the Collector. In the present case, though the approval was accorded by the competent authority, the penalty was inflicted by the Additional Collector, and thus, the order Annexure-P/1 has been passed in contravention of the provisions of the Rules, 2006. The Additional Collector has not been conferred with the power to inflict the penalty on the teachers according to the Rules, 2006; therefore, the order Annexure P/1 dated 21/27.10.2016 is hereby quashed. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby allowed. 11. The respondent authorities would be at liberty to initiate a fresh enquiry, if so advised. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant