The question is the same as the title states. In my textbook,[NCERT Chemistry I for Class 12 , pg no 217.] the following is written
$\ce{Cr^{2+}}$ gets converted to $\ce{Cr^{3+}}$ as the +3 oxidation state has half-filled $\mathrm{t_{2g}}$ orbitals; thus it is a good reducing agent.
On the other hand $\ce{Mn^{3+}}$ gets converted to $\ce{Mn^{2+}}$ as its +2 oxidation state has a half-filled d-subshell.
Now my questions are:
Why can't the $\mathrm{t_{2g}}$ argument be used for $\ce{Mn}$?
Why can't the half-filled $\mathrm{d}$-orbital argument be used for $\ce{Cr}$?
$\ce{Mn^3+}$ could be oxidized to $\ce{Mn^4+}$, which would have a half-filled $\mathrm{t_{2g}}$ set. As oxidation and reduction both can take place in aqueous medium, why wouldn't $\mathrm{t_{2g}^3}$ or $\mathrm{d^3}$ configuration be more stable than $\mathrm{d^5}$ configuration in aqueous medium?
A similar observation is made in case of $\ce{Fe^2+}$ and $\ce{Cr^2+}$, where it observed that $\ce{Cr^2+}$ is more powerful reducing agent than $\ce{Fe^2+}$ (due to reasons explained above).
If possible, I would like to see the crystal field splitting calculations that show this to be the case.