1 2025:CGHC:34855 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2143 of 2021 * - Gajala Shaheen Nicky W/o Tousif Raza Aged About 32 Years C/o Sheikh Mohammad Ali Khan, House No. 147, Village And Post Manora, Block Manora, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Jashpur, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Block Education Officer Block Manora, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 For Respondent No. 3 : : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Mr. Shobhit Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 In the circumstances and on the basis of the fact narrated and grounds urged in the preceding paragraphs. It is most humbly and respectfully prayed that Hon’ble the Court be pleased to call for the entire records of the case culminating in the passing of the impugned order Annexure- P/1. from the office of respondent no. 3/CEO Zila Panchayat, Jashpur. 10.2 Hon’ble the Court be pleased to set aside the impugned order Annexure P/1 dt. 18/09/2017 issued by the respondent no. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.23 15:29:22 +0530 2 3 and the order passed by Appellate Authority Annexure P/2 on 15/05/2018. 10.3 Hon’ble the Court be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to give joining to the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II (English) now called Teacher (Panchayat) along with all consequential benefits. 10.4 Any other relief(s) deemed fit and proper by the Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of the petition etc. 2. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II (English) vide order dated 16.11.2010 and she was posted at Middle School Harri, Block Manora, District Jashpur. He would contend that on 10.08.2016, the Block Education Officer, Manora, visited the school and found the petitioner absent from duties. It is contended that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.05.2017; a reply was filed by the petitioner on 29.05.2017; the statement of witnesses was recorded on 29.05.2017; the enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 18.07.2017, and thereafter, a penalty of termination of services was inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority pursuant to a resolution passed by the General Administrative Committee of Zila Panchayat dated 12.09.2017 on 18.09.2017. He would contend that an appeal was also preferred before the Commissioner, and it was dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2018. Mr. U.N.S. Deo would further submit that the article of charge was not issued and the petitioner was not provided with the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, and therefore, the enquiry report and the subsequent orders are bad in law. It is also contended by Mr. U.N.S. Deo that the petitioner met with an accident on 17.06.2016, and this fact was communicated to the Head 3 Master of the school on 20.06.2016 and to the Block Education Officer on 24.06.2016. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. They would contend that the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed; a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner; a reply was filed, the statements of witnesses were recorded; a copy of the enquiry report was served on the petitioner, and thereafter, the final decision was taken strictly in accordance with the law. They would also submit that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority, and thus, there are concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. From a perusal of the documents, it is quite vivid that the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed on 22.02.2017, and thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.05.2017. The allegation against the petitioner was that she remained absent from duties for a considerable period. In the reply, the petitioner stated that as she had met with an accident, therefore, she could not perform her duties when the Block Education Officer visited the school. It appears that the article of charge as required under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 was not issued to the petitioner and further, she was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses, who were 4 examined on 29.05.2017, therefore, the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority are hereby quashed. 6. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to issue the article of charge to the petitioner according to the provisions of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and thereafter, permit her to cross-examine the witnesses; thereafter, the authority concerned may take the decision strictly in accordance with the law. 7. With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), the petition is allowed. It is expected that the Disciplinary Authority shall conclude the proceeding preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti