NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 1079 of 2016 Reserved on 14.11.2025 Pronounced on 11.02.2026 Uploaded on 11.02.2026 Ashwani Sahu, S/o Shri Chamru Ram Sahu, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Budeni, Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Capital Complex, New Raipur District Raipur Chhatisgarh 2. Collector, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 4. Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 186 of 2016 Suraj Prakash Karsh, S/o Shri Shivshankar, aged about 35 years, R/o. Shikshak Colony, Mainpur, Block-Mainpur, Police Station Mainpur, District - Gariyaband Chhattigarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Commissioner, Raipur Division, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. The Collector, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. The Collector, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 5. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mainpur, District – Gariyaband -2- Chhattisgarh. 6. The Block Education Officer, Manipur, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 7. Premchand Nagesh, S/o Rathoram Nagesh, presently working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and posted at Government Primary School Khajurpadar, Janpad Panchayat Manipur, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 8. Holeshwar Sahu, S/o Toral Lal Sahu, presently working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III At Government Primary School, Ghotiyabharri, Janpad Panchayat Mainpur, District-Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 1083 of 2016 Tulsiram Sinha, S/o. Shri Paharuram Sinha, aged about 34 years, R/o. Village Silghat Post. Semara, Vikaskhand Kurud, Dist. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, ---Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Capital Complex, New Raipur, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector, Dist. Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mainpur, Dist. Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, 4. Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 3159 of 2016 Tulsiram Kashyap, S/o S.R. Kashyap, aged about 37 years, R/o Village Sargiguda, Block Mainpur, Tah. and District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, ---Petitioners Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh thorugh the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Capital Complex, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Collector, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 4. Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents -3- WPS No. 3163 of 2016 Pinkuram Sahu, S/o Shri Sakharam Sahu, aged about 28 years, R/o Village Budeni Post Bhendri Vikaskhand Magarload, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, ---Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2. Collector, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 4. Commissioner Raipur, Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 1082 of 2016 Mahesh Kumar Kurre, S/o. Shri Chandrabhan Kurre, aged about 28 years, R/o. Village Indagaon Post Indagaon Vikaskhand - Mainpur, Dist. Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Capital Complex, New Raipur, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2. Collector, Dist. Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mainpur, Dist. Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 4. Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Respective Petitioners : Shri Sudeep Johari, Shri D.D. Yadav, and Shri J.K. Gupta, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. For Respective Respondents : Shri H.B. Agrawal Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. A. Sandhaya Rao, Advocate and Shri Anil S. Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board Since the issue involved in all the aforesaid Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. -4- 2. In WPS No. 1079/2016, WPS No. 1083/2016, WPS No. 3163/2016 the challenge is to the order dated 10.02.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division affirming the order passed by the Collector Gariyabaned dated 28.02.2015 terminating the services of the petitioners as Shiksha Karmi Grade- III. However, in WPS No. 3159/2016 the order under challenge is dated 21.09.2015 passed by Commissioner, Raipur Division affirming the order passed by the Collector Gariyaband dated 28.02.2015 terminating the services of the petitioner therein as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. In WPS No. 186/2016 the order impugned is dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division affirming the order dated 25.07.2015 passed by Collector Gariyaband terminating the services of the petitioner therein. In WPS No. 1082/2016 the order impugned is dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division affirming the order of the Collector dated 08.07.2015 passed by the Collector Gariyaband terminating the services of the petitioner therein. This apart, order dated 28.02.2015 (Annexure P-17) passed by the Collector, Gariyaband, District Gariyabaned is also under challenge. 3. Facts in short: For convenience, the facts are being picked up from WPS No. 1079/2016. The petitioners in all the aforesaid petitions were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in the year 2007 under the concerned Janpad Panchayat. The bonus marks awarded to the petitioners which have been discarded by the respondents while cancelling their appointment pertain to sports, scout, experience etc. On an anonymous complaint, an inquiry was conducted in respect of the selection of 329 Shiksha Karmis out of which 103 Shiksha Karmis including the petitioners were scrutinized and subsequently after inquiry, their termination was recommended. The order of termination of the -5- petitioners was passed by the Collector, Gariyaband on different dates. The termination was on the ground that there was grave irregularity in making appointment of the petitioners by providing the bonus marks for sport related certficates which the petitioner himself states to have not submitted the same. Looking to the fact that the petitioner himself has admitted that no sport certficate was submitted by him, Collector Gariyaband vide its order dated 28.02.2015 (signed on 02.03.2015) directed the Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur to remove the petitioner from service. In pursuance of the order of the Collector, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur removed the petitioner from service vide its order dated 03.03.2015 (Annexure P-18). The order of the Collector dated 28.02.2015 was challenged before the Commissioner, Raipur Division and the same was affirmed by order dated 10.02.2016 (Annexure P-1). It is this order which is under challenge in this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner have been terminated by the order of the Collector which has been affirmed in appeal as well, without compliance of the mandatory provisions of Rule 11 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Bharti Avam Sewa Ki Sharten) Niyam 1997 as also in contravention of the provisions of Chhattisgarh Panchayati Sewa (Bharti Tatha Sewa Ki Samanya Sharten) Rules 1999 as neither any enquiry was conducted in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Sewa (Anushasan Tatha Appeal) Niyam 1999 nor the punishment of removal from service was inflicted upon the petitioner after conducting enquiry. He thus submits that this being the position where the mandatory rules of conducting enquiry have not been adhered to while removing the petitioner from service, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is submitted by learned -6- counsel for the petitioner that rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Bharti Tatha Sewa Ki Sharten) Niyam 1997 provides that the conditions of services of the Shiksha Karmis are equally applicable to the employees of Janpad Panchayat and Jila Panchayat and therefore the departmental enquiry should have been conducted prior to termination of the petitioners from service, but as that requirement of law has not been fulfiled in the case in hand, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be reinstated in service with full back wages and all consequential benefits attached to the post which was held by him. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order impugned is further illegal as no enquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner was deprived of defending his case by examining the witnesses in support of his case. The order impugned is further argued to be illegal for the reason that the bonus marks given by the selection committee for the sports certificate though the same does not find mention in the application of the petitioner nor any verification to this effect was resorted to by the concerned competent authority which in this case happens to be the Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, and for this reason also the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been penalized for the carelessness and casual approach of the selection committee where no marks have been awarded to the petitioner for his experience, and for this also the order impugned is bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the Commissioner, Raipur Division himself has mentioned in its order dated 10.02.2016 that fraud, irregularities, impartiality and arbitrariness is apparent on the part of the Selection Committee in making the appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. He submits that mere acceptance of bonus marks on the part of the petitioner awarded by the Selection Committee though -7- he had not submitted any sports certificate nor does the same find mention in his application, cannot be construed as fraud on his part. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the Commissioner Raipur Division has also fallen in a serious error in affirming the order of the Collector ignoring the fact that the irregularity and casual approach if any is attributable to the concerned Selection Committee, and therefore also the order impugned is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that as the petitioner had rendered more than 7 years of service, in the light of Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh reported in AIR 1968 SC 1210 where it has been held that in the case of like nature where a probation period comes to an end, either the probation can be extended or the services could have been dispensed with when the work or conduct during the period of probation was unsatisfactory. It is thus submitted that since the period of probation has already come to an end on 26.09.2010 and there was no rule providing the extension of probation beyond the stipulated period, the petitioner became regularised. It is further submitted that termination during the probation period is stigmatic, therefore in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dipti Prakash Banjare v. Satyendra Nath Bose reported in (1999) 3 SCC 60 and in the mater of National Centre for Basic Science Calcutta and others reported in (2000) 5 SCC 152 proper opportunity of hearing by conducting proper enquiry is required to be given to the delinquent employee, but in this case nothing alike has been done. In sum and substance, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned is illegal as the respondents have not complied with the principle of natural justice despite there being a specific order passed by the Division Bench of this Court to decide the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. -8- 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/State supports the order impugned and submits that having applied to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Janpad Panchayat Mainpur, the petitioner was appointed on the said post in the year 2007. It is submitted that as there was some complaint regarding illegal awarding of bonus marks for sports certificate, which on enquiry was found to be correct, his appointment was cancelled. The cancellation of appointment was subjected to challenge in WPS No. 3012/2009 which came to be allowed and the cancellation of appointment stood quashed vide order dated 07.08.2009. Thereafter, as is apparent from the return filed by the State, other candidates also filed WPS No. 1392/2011 in which a direction was issued to the Collector, and in compliance thereto, Collector issued show cause notice to the aggrieved candidates. In response to the said show-cause notice the candidates including the petitioner herein submitted a reply putting forth their stand. By order dated 28.02.2015 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner and other aggrieved candidates, the Collector directed the CEO of the concerned Janpad Panchayat to terminate their services as they were wrongly awarded the marks for experience, scout guide and sports certificates. Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur accordingly terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated 03.03.2015 (Annexure P-18). As already stated, against the order dated 28.02.2015 passed by the Collector, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Raipur Division who vide order dated 10.02.2016 affirmed the order of the Collector by dismissing the appeal. Almost similar stand has been taken by the Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur. -9- 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents on record it transpires that in pursuance of the advertisement floated by the Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions and the other candidates applied for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and appointed as such in the year 2007. It is worthwhile to mention here that one of the criterian applied for appointment in these cases was the bonus marks awarded for sports certificate, experience certificate, scout guide certificate etc. So far as WPS No. 1079/2016 is concerned, the petitioner though did not submit the sports certificate nor did he make a mention thereof in his application, he was awarded 4.5 bonus marks. Later, on the basis of some complaint an enquiry was conducted in which it was found that the petitioners are not entitled for the bonus marks for sport certificate, experience certificate, scout guide certificate etc. as no such certificate was submitted by them. After the enquiry, termination of the petitioners was recommended. Thereafter, Collector, Gariyaband on different dates cancelled the appointment of the petitioners and other candidates, and asked the concerned Janpad Panchayat to terminate their services. The documents on record prima facie show that irreguarity or casualness if any is attributable to the authorities of the concerned Janpad Panchayat which made the appointment because the petitioners have categorically disclosed in the petition that they did not submit any such certificate for which the bonus marks have been allocated. 8. This Court while deciding an almost similar issue in W.P. (S) No.1420/2016 has vide order dated 31.10.2018 made the following observations:- -10- 9. Given the admitted factual position of the case as also the judgment of this court in the case similarly situated persons belonging to the other Janpad Panchayat i.e. Janpad Panchayat Saja also taking note that they were also terminated arising out of the same enquiry and in whose case there already is an order of setting aside of the termination order, this court in exercise of judicial discipline proprietary and precedence is inclined to apply the same analogy in deciding the case of the petitioners as well. In the said judgment of Rohini Jha (Supra), this court has observed in paragraphs 3 to 5 as under: “(3) Admittedly, on certain allegations, show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and when the respondent authority was not satisfied with the reply of present petitioners, their services have been terminated. A Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Rooplal Nayak vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2006(4) M.P.H.T. 99 (C.G.) has held that any of the major penalty prescribed under Rule 5(b) (iv) of the Rules, 1999 cannot be imposed on a member of Panchayat service to whom the said Rules are applicable without conducting regular Departmental Enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. -11- (4) In the case at hand, no departmental enquiry has been held as contemplated under Rule 7. The said provisions uses the words 'formal inquiry' with further stipulation that an Court of Chorder for formal enquiry' has been made, the disciplinary authority shall frame Definite charges, communicate the same to the delinquent along with the statement of allegations, requiring him to submit within the specified time a written statement of defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. Thereafter, the defence is required to be permitted to inspect and take extracts from the records which can be refused for reasons to be recorded in writing. On submission of reply by the delinquent, the disciplinary authority may himself enquire or appoint an enquiry officer. Appointment of presenting officer and seeking assistance of some other officer by the delinquent is also contemplated therein. The enquiry officer is also enabled to record evidence and thereafter, at the conclusion of the enquiry , the enquiry officer is supposed to prepare enquiry report, the copy of which is required to be furnised to the deliquent. Thus, the formal inquiry envisaged unter the Rules is akin to the prescribed for a regular enquiry under Rule 14 of the C.G. Civil -12- Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. (5) The material made available to this Court nowhere indicate that any enquiry as contemplated under Rule 7 has been initiated or conducted against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order of termiantion is ex-facie not sustainable in law and the same deserves to be set aside.” 9. Aforesaid order was subsequently followed by this Court in W.P.S. No. 5933/2016 vide order dated 05.10.2023. 10. From the pleadings of the respective parties it prima facie appears that the petitioner did not submit the sports certificate nor the same was referred to in his application but even then he was granted the bonus mark for the same. This fact is also apparent from the document of Annexure P/17 in WPS No. 1079/2016. Documents further go to show that the termination of the services of the petitioners was on the basis of an annonymous complaint and acting thereupon the Collector recommended for the termination of the services of the petitioners which subsequently got affirmed in appeal also. Documents further demonstrate that before passing the termination order the petitioners were not subjected to any regular enquiry. Since, the punishment of termination is a major penality and that the said termination order came after the petitioners had put in considerable period of service, the proper regular departmental inquiry before passing the termiantion order was necessary, which has not been taken recourse to in these cases, and thereby the petitioners have been deprived of an -13- opportunity of defending themselves. Thus this Court is of the considered opinion that before terminating the services of an employee who is governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayati Sewa (Bharti Tatha Sewa Ki Samanya Sharten) Rules 1999, it is obligatory on the respondents to initiate the regular proceedings as is required under the relevant rule because its non compliance would vitiate the aforesaid action of the respondents. 11. Be that as it may, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the orders impugned prima facie appear to have been passed dehors the relevant rules, the aforesaid writ petitions deserve to be allowed on the ground of non-compliance of relevant rules applicable to the services of the petitioners by not taking recourse to the proper regular inquiry before terminating their services. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and the orders impugned therein are hereby set-aside. 12. This Court deems it necessary to clarify that the respondents would be at liberty to initiate the appropriate proceedings against the petitioners if they so a, but strictly adhereing to the relevant rules. It is futher clarified that in that event the respondents shall pass a detailed reasoned order after dealing with each and every argument put forth by the petitioners before them and also constricting themselves to the legal position holding the field. 13. Petitions thus stand allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi/Ashish ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.11 16:47:04 +0530