1 2025:CGHC:42947 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2592 of 2018 * - Paluram Baghel S/o Shri Ratiram Baghel Aged About 36 Years Occupation- Terminated Driver, Posted At Chief Medical And Health Officer, Raigarh, Presently R/o Boirdadar, Mali Deepa, Behind Housing Board, Police Station- Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Raipur, Block A, Third Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Bilaspur, New Composite Buidling, Collectorate Premises, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by setting-aside the order dated 4.4.2016 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Bilaspur), (Annexure P/1). 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate direction to the respondent authorities to grant salary and other consequential benefit and the termination period be deemed as duty period. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.28 18:53:04 +0530 2 10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted. 2. Mr. Roop Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of driver vide order dated 10.04.2013 and he joined his services on 18.04.2013 under respondent No. 4. He would contend that show cause notice containing article of charge was issued to the petitioner on 07.10.2014 and there were serious allegations against him. He would contend that a departmental enquiry was conducted and penalty of dismissal from services was passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 30.05.2015. He would further contend that an appeal was preferred before respondent No.3 on 02.12.2015 raising various grounds. He would submit that respondent No. 3 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 04.04.2016 for want of prosecution. He would further submit that the Appellate Authority ought to have decided the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits. He would contend that the order is cryptic, illegal, arbitrary and has been passed without application of mind. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. He would submit that notices were issued to the petitioner for his personal appearance, but he failed to appear before the Appellate Authority and therefore, his appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 04.04.2016. He would contend that the provisions of Rules of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 were complied with. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents. 5. The petitioner who was working on the post of driver, was removed from services vide order dated 30.05.2015 by the Disciplinary Authority in a full fledged departmental enquiry. The memo of appeal was preferred by the petitioner before respondent No. 3 on 02.12.2015 and notices were issued to the petitioner to appear before the authority, but the petitioner could not appear and his appeal was dismissed by respondent No. 3 for want of prosecution vide order dated 04.04.2016. The memo of appeal would show that the petitioner has raised various grounds and the Appellate Authority should have decided the appeal strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 23 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The order dated 04.04.2016 passed by respondent No.3 appears to be unreasonable and illegal and accordingly, same is hereby quashed. 6. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.3 to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall appear before the Appellate Authority on 02 of September, 2025. Respondent No. 3 is directed to conclude the proceedings and to take appropriate decision preferably within a period of 60 days from date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti