Head of Department lacks jurisdiction to impose major penalties on Class-II employees.

The petitioner, a Tahsildar (Class-II employee), was served a charge-sheet on 06.07.2016 alleging that he illegally deleted the term 'non-transferable' from revenue records

Following a departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer recommended punishment in a report dated 29.05.2017

Based on this, the Principal Revenue Commissioner, Bhopal, passed an order dated 25.10.2018 imposing a major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect

The petitioner challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the Principal Revenue Commissioner lacked the statutory jurisdiction to impose a major penalty on a Class-II employee

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 24 of the M.P. Civil Services Rules

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966

2. Whether the Principal Revenue Commissioner possesses the legal competence/jurisdiction to impose a major penalty on a Class-II employee

State Government Revenue Department order dated 20.04.2011, which designates the Principal Revenue Commissioner as the "Head of the Department" (Vibhagadhyaksha)

General Administration Department (GAD) circular dated 03.02.2011 explicitly stipulates that a Head of the Department is only empowered to impose "minor punishments" under the 1966 Rules

The exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of self-imposed restriction, which does not apply when an order is challenged for being "wholly without jurisdiction"

The Court first addressed the preliminary objection, ruling that since the challenge was based on a fundamental lack of jurisdiction, the existence of an alternative remedy was not an absolute bar to judicial review under Article 226

On the merits of jurisdiction, the Court observed that the Principal Revenue Commissioner, as the Head of the Department, is only vested with the power to impose minor penalties

It was undisputed that the withholding of increments with cumulative effect constitutes a "major penalty"

Consequently, the Court found that the Principal Revenue Commissioner exceeded his statutory authority. Because the order suffered from an inherent jurisdictional defect, the Court held it was a nullity, making it unnecessary to examine the factual merits of the charges or the petitioner's performance of quasi-judicial duties under the MPLRC

The jurisdictional defect rendered the order a nullity. However, liberty was granted to the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage the defect occurred, provided it is done by a competent authority in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice