1 CGHC010346282024 2026:CGHC:34767 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6703 of 2024 Afroj Malik Khunte S/o Shri Govind Ram Khunte Aged About 34 Years Working As Pharmacist Grade-2, In The Office Of Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Civil And Revenue District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) 4 - The Additional Collector Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) 5 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 07/08/2026 1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the suspension order dated 09/08/2024 (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No.4 and the charge-sheet dated 13/09/2024 & 20/09/2024 (Annexure P/7 & P/8). ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.08.10 17:53:45 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned suspension order dated 09/08/2024 has been issued by the Additional Collector, who was not competent to pass the said order as the petitioner is working as Pharmacist Grade-II in the office of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jashpur, District Jashpur and the CMHO is the competent authority to issue such order whereas in the present case the order has been issued by the Additional Collector. He would further submit that once charge-sheet has been issued by the Additional Collector on 20/09/2024 and on the same set of allegations another charge-sheet has been issued by the CMHO, hence, the charge-sheet (Annexure P/8) is also bad in law as two charge-sheets cannot be issued on the same set of facts and charges by two different authorities. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel, placing reliance upon the circular dated 23.05.1996 (Annexure R/1) issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, would submit that the said circular continues to hold the field and, in terms thereof, the Collectors have been empowered to exercise the power of suspension in respect of Class-III and Class-IV employees posted in their respective districts. It is, therefore, submitted that the Collector was competent to exercise the power of suspension in respect of the petitioner. Learned State counsel, by referring to Section 17(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code, 1959’), would further submit that the Additional Collector is competent to exercise such powers as may be delegated to him by the Collector. He would further submit that, once the power vested in the Collector under the aforesaid circular has been delegated to 3 the Additional Collector, the Additional Collector, in exercise of such delegated authority, becomes competent to exercise the power of suspension in respect of the petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Additional Collector cannot be assailed on the ground of want of jurisdiction. With regard to the contention of the petitioner for issuance of two charge-sheets is concerned the State counsel has accepted the said argument and submits that the charge-sheet cannot be issued by two different authorities. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings as well as the documents placed on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Chief Medical & Health Officer (CMHO) is the appointing authority of the petitioner and, therefore, the order of suspension could not have been passed by an authority other than the competent disciplinary authority. The said submission has substance. The respondents have sought to justify the authority of the Additional Collector by placing reliance upon the Circular of the year 1996, under which the Collectors are stated to have been empowered to exercise the power of suspension in respect of Class- III employees. Though learned State counsel has submitted that the power vested in the Collector stood delegated to the Additional Collector by virtue of Section 17 (2) of the Code, 1959, no order of delegation, notification or other material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the Collector had, in fact, delegated the power of suspension conferred upon him under Annexure R/1 to the Additional Collector. The mere existence of a statutory provision enabling delegation cannot, 4 by itself, establish that such power was actually delegated in the case at hand. 6. Consequently, in the absence of any material demonstrating a valid delegation of the power of suspension to the Additional Collector, the Additional Collector cannot be held to have possessed the jurisdiction to exercise the said power. Thus, the order of suspension dated 09.08.2024, passed by the Additional Collector against the petitioner, is found to have been passed by an authority not competent to exercise such power under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 7. There is yet another infirmity in the matter. The appointing authority had already issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner vide Annexure P/7 in respect of the same set of allegations and facts. Thereafter, a second charge-sheet, vide Annexure P/8, has been issued by the Additional Collector on the very same set of facts and charges. Once the competent appointing/disciplinary authority had already initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuance of the charge-sheet contained in Annexure P/7, the subsequent issuance of another charge-sheet by an authority which has not been shown to possess the requisite disciplinary jurisdiction cannot be sustained. The respondents cannot be permitted to subject the petitioner to parallel or successive disciplinary proceedings on the same set of charges merely by issuing another charge-sheet through a different authority, particularly when the competence of such authority itself has not been established. 5 8. Accordingly, the subsequent charge-sheet issued vide Annexure P/8, being without demonstrated jurisdiction and founded upon the same set of facts and charges which had already formed the subject matter of Annexure P/7, is also liable to be quashed. 9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and having examined the material available on record, this Court finds that the order of suspension dated 09.08.2024 (Annexure P/1) has been passed by the Additional Collector, whereas no material has been placed on record to establish that the Additional Collector was vested with the power to suspend the petitioner. 10. The reliance placed upon the Circular of the year 1996 does not advance the case of the respondents, since the said circular is stated to confer the relevant power upon the Collector, and no valid order of delegation authorising the Additional Collector to exercise such power has been produced before this Court. The existence of a power with the Collector cannot, in the absence of a legally established delegation, be treated as conferring the same power upon the Additional Collector. The order of suspension, therefore, suffers from a fundamental defect of lack of jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. 11. As regards Annexure P/8, admittedly, the appointing authority had already issued the charge-sheet vide Annexure P/7 in respect of the same set of allegations and facts. The subsequent charge-sheet issued by the Additional Collector on the very same allegations, in the absence of demonstrated competence of the said authority, cannot be permitted to 6 stand. The initiation of a second disciplinary proceeding on the same set of charges by an authority whose jurisdiction has not been established is legally unsustainable. 12. Accordingly, the order of suspension dated 09.08.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Collector and the subsequent charge-sheet issued by the Additional Collector vide Annexure P/8 are hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the competent disciplinary/appointing authority from proceeding in accordance with law on the basis of charge sheet (Annexure P/7), which has been issued by the CMHO, subject to all rights and contentions available to the petitioner in such proceedings. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu