1 CGHC010085092026 2026:CGHC:31163-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 576 of 2026 1 - Vivekanand Vidhyapeeth Through Secretary, Vivekanand Vidhyapeeth, Ramkrishna Nagar, Kota, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant Versus 1 - Rajendra Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Shyamlal Sinha Aged About 50 Years Working As Assistant Teacher, At Vivekanand Vidhyapeeth, Kota, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Welfare, Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal And Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector Tribal Department Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Additional Collector Tribal Department Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate. For State : Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 22.07.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 15.01.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.07.23 10:44:58 +0530 2 Review Petition No.10 of 2026 whereby the said Review Petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed upholding the order passed in WPS No.2041 of 2017 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was allowed and order dated 21/27.10.2016 inflicting penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect, was quashed. 2 Brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the writ petition as well as writ appeal are that, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher on 05.01.1996 at Vivekanand Vidyapeeth, which is a government-aided school. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the writ petitioner by the appellant according to provisions of the Non-Government Institutions Grant Rules, 2006 (for short "Rules, 2006"). The submission of appellant herein before learned Single Judge was that inquiry could have been initiated against the petitioner only after due approval of the recommendation made by the institution to the competent authority. The 'Competent Authority' as per Rules, 2006, is the 'District Collector', however, the penalty has been imposed by the Additional Collector, Tribal Development, Raipur, who is not the competent authority as per Rules, 2006. The learned Single Judge, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as material produced before it, allowed the petition of writ petitioner holding that though approval was accorded by the competent authority, but penalty was inflicted by the Additional Collector who was not the competent authority as per Rule 9 of Rules, 2006. Review sought against the said 3 order of Single Judge also got dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2026. Hence this writ appeal. 3 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of writ petition as well as writ appeal. 4 From perusal of record as well as documents annexed with the writ petition and appeal it reflects that the appellant-institution is a 100 percent government aided educational institute under the administrative and financial control of Tribal Welfare Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh. The writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of penalty imposed upon the petitioner was allowed by the Single Judge holding that though approval was accorded by the competent authority i.e. Collector, but penalty was inflicted by the Additional Collector who was not the competent authority as per Rule 9 of Rules, 2006. Only Collector and Commissioner (Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Development Department) was the Competent Authority as per Rule 2(4) of the Rules, 2006. Since Additional Collector was not defined as competent authority under the said Rules to inflict punishment against the writ petitioner, learned Single Judge has rightly allowed his petition and quashed the order passed by an incompetent authority. Even otherwise, while hearing this writ appeal, on 14.07.2026 the counsel for appellant herein was directed to produce copy of prior permission obtained from Collector to initiate departmental enquiry against the writ petitioner as envisaged under Rule 9 of Rules, 2006, to which he failed to produce any such document and only submit that the record is not traceable. Once the appellant failed to produce prior permission of Collector i.e. competent 4 authority, to initiate departmental enquiry against the writ petitioner, the entire enquiry vitiates. Thus, appeal deserves dismissal on this ground alone. 5 In writ appeal no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Single Judge unless palpable infirmities are being shown in the impugned order. From perusal of entire material placed on record, we do not find any such infirmities or irregularities in the order passed by learned Single Judge which warrants interference of this court. 6 Therefore, we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the findings recorded by learned Single Judge and the writ appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder