Suspension imposed by an incompetent authority is void, and later extensions cannot validate it.

The applicant, a PGT (Mathematics) and Group ‘B’ non-gazetted employee, was suspended by the Director of Education on 8 March 2018 in connection with an FIR concerning an alleged examination-paper leak.

His suspension was extended from time to time, most recently by an order dated 23 July 2025.

The departmental Inquiry Officer found the charges against him not proved, although the Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement note; the applicant had not been charge-sheeted in the criminal case.

He sought quashing of the suspension and consequential benefits, including enhanced subsistence allowance.

The respondents opposed the application, including on the ground that he had not pursued the appeal available under Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

The applicant relied on the Tribunal’s decision in Rajesh Kumar Balara, affirmed by the Delhi High Court, concerning the competent authority to take disciplinary action against Group ‘B’ non-gazetted employees.

1. Whether the Director of Education had authority to suspend the applicant, a Group ‘B’ non-gazetted employee, and whether subsequent extension orders could validate an initial suspension made without jurisdiction.

2. Whether the applicant’s failure to exhaust the appellate remedy under Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 precluded the Tribunal from considering a challenge based on the suspending authority’s lack of competence.

Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides an appellate remedy against suspension; however, the Tribunal held that the failure to pursue that remedy did not defeat a challenge to the authority’s jurisdiction to make the impugned order.

Relying on Rajesh Kumar Balara v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (O.A. No. 3096/2018, order dated 1 December 2023), as affirmed by the Delhi High Court on 14 November 2024, the Tribunal applied the rule that the Chief Secretary—not the Director of Education—was the competent authority in the relevant circumstances involving Group ‘B’ non-gazetted employees.

It also relied on Sarup Singh v. Union of India, AIR 2011 SC 514, for the principle that an order made by an authority lacking inherent jurisdiction is void ab initio and may be challenged at a later stage or in collateral proceedings.

The applicant’s status as a Group ‘B’ non-gazetted employee and the fact that the initial suspension order was made by the Director of Education were undisputed.

Applying Rajesh Kumar Balara, the Tribunal concluded that the Director lacked statutory competence to suspend him.

Later extensions by the same authority could not cure that original jurisdictional defect, and the Chief Secretary’s extension in July 2025 could not retrospectively validate an order void at inception.

The Tribunal therefore rejected the exhaustion objection because the challenge went to the authority’s competence to make the order.

It also noted the prolonged suspension, the Inquiry Officer’s finding that the charges were not proved, and the absence of a criminal charge-sheet against the applicant.

The respondents were directed to comply, preferably within eight weeks; they remained at liberty to take appropriate steps against the applicant in accordance with law and the relevant rules.

No costs were ordered.