Collector Lacks Jurisdiction to Impose Major Penalties on Class III and Class IV Employees

The petitioner, a Class-III employee, challenged a relieving order dated 10-05-2010 [Annexure P/1] and a penalty order dated 31-10-2009 [Annexure P/2] passed by the Collector (Respondent No. 3).

By the order dated 31-10-2009, the Collector withheld five increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect and directed that salary for the suspension period be restricted to subsistence allowance.

The petitioner contended that the Collector is neither the appointing nor the disciplinary authority and only possesses delegated powers to impose minor penalties on Class III and IV employees.

An appeal against this order was rejected by the appellate authority without considering the jurisdictional challenge.

1. Whether the Collector (Respondent No. 3) had the legal jurisdiction to impose a major penalty, specifically the withholding of five increments with cumulative effect, upon a Class-III employee

2. Whether the penalty of withholding increments with cumulative effect constitutes a "minor" or "major" penalty under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

The court primarily applied Rule 10 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which distinguishes between minor penalties (such as censure or simple withholding of increments) and major penalties (such as reduction to a lower stage or time-scale).

It relied on Notification No. C-6-7-96-3-1 dated 23-05-1996, which delegates power to the Collector to exercise Rule 9 (suspension) and Rule 10 (minor penalties) only.

The court further applied the principle from Govind Singh Yadav v. State of M.P. (W.P. 4067/2011) and R.D. Dwivedi v. State of M.P. (W.P. 28671/2021), establishing that an authority with delegated power for minor penalties cannot impose major penalties.

It also cited the Supreme Court decision in Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Association of India v. Director General of Civil Aviation, which held that statutory authorities must act within their conferred competence and cannot be dictated by or exceed their statutory role.

The court found that under the 1996 Notification, the State Government specifically delegated only the power to impose "minor penalties" on Class III and IV employees to the Collector.

Upon analyzing Rule 10 of the 1966 Rules, the court determined that withholding increments with cumulative effect does not fall under the category of minor penalties; rather, it operates as a major penalty because it permanently impacts the employee's pay scale.

Therefore, although the Collector had the delegated power to discipline the petitioner, he exceeded his jurisdiction by imposing a penalty of a nature (major) that was never delegated to him.

The court noted that because the Collector was not the original appointing or disciplinary authority of the School Education Department (but an official of the General Administration Department exercising delegated powers), his authority was strictly confined to the four corners of the delegation notification.

Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned penalty order dated 31.10.2009 [Annexure P-2] and the appellate order dated 10.5.2010 [Annexure P-1].

The respondents were directed to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner within three months, while reserving the liberty for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law if so advised.

The petition was allowed.