Administrative orders passed in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to specific judicial directions are legally unsustainable.

The petitioner, a Patwari, was suspended on 01.07.2004 following allegations of unauthorized absence, failure to deposit collected land revenue, and failure to disburse flood relief funds

Following a disciplinary enquiry where the charges were proved, the petitioner was removed from service on 22.02.2006

The petitioner filed a review petition, and subsequently WPS No. 953 of 2013, wherein the High Court directed the Commissioner of Land Records to decide said review petition within three months

However, the Collector, purportedly acting under the directions of the High Court in the previous writ petition, passed an order on 11.09.2013 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner

The petitioner challenged this order (Annexure P-1) on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and violation of procedural rules

1. Whether the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding an appeal when the High Court had specifically directed the Commissioner of Land Records to decide a review petition

2. Whether the impugned order dated 11.09.2013 is sustainable in law

Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, regarding the procedure for disciplinary actions

the principle of administrative jurisdiction, holding that an authority cannot take shelter under a court direction to exercise powers not assigned to it by that court or by statute

The Court noted that the High Court's direction in WPS No. 953 of 2013 was explicitly issued to the Commissioner of Land Records to decide a review petition

Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 11.09.2013, the Court found that the Collector had entertained and decided an appeal by citing the High Court's direction in the aforementioned writ petition as the basis for his authority

The Court observed that the State failed to produce any order showing that the Commissioner had actually decided the review petition

Since the High Court's mandate was specific to the Commissioner and the review process, the Collector's act of deciding an appeal while claiming to follow court directions constituted an excess of jurisdiction

Consequently, the order was found to be legally flawed as the authority concerned acted beyond the scope of the judicial direction

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 11.09.2013 (Annexure P-1)

The Commissioner of Land Records, Raipur, was directed to decide the petitioner's review petition in accordance with the direction issued in WPS No. 953 of 2013

The Court further clarified that if the review petition had already been decided, the petitioner remains at liberty to avail himself of other remedies available under the law