1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1189 of 2019 1 – M. Ali S/o Shri S. A. Ali Aged About 60 Years Occupation Assistant Professor (Sociology) Government Kaktiya Post Graduate College, Dharampura Jagdalpur, Disrtict- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Higher Education Sanchalnalay, Block- C-30, Iind Floor Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Additional Director Higher Education Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Principal Government Kaktiya Post Graduate College, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, Disrtict- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Dr. Smt. V. Vijay Laxmi Principal Government Kaktiya Post Graduate College, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, Disrtict- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Prateek Tiwari, P.L. For Respondent No.5 : None. Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO Date: 2025.04.08 10:57:41 +0530 -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03.04.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner, particularly complaint and enquiry against petitioner and call for written report regarding possession of government quarter E-6 during transfer period for relevant 9 years 2008-2018 of the respondent no. 4/5. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/ set-aside the impugned notice dated 04.12.2018 (Annexure P-1) and entire proceeding drawn in garb of Annexure P-1. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to respondent no. 4/5 to withdraw the Annexure P-1 with apology. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 3. The facts in a nutshell are that:- (i) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in Sociology subject at Government Kaktiya Post Graduate College, Dharampura Jagdalpur, District Bastar in the year 1982. 3 (ii) During his service period, he was transferred many times to different places. The petitioner moved a representation on 23.8.2012 and requested for transfer to any place beyond the scheduled area. WP.(S) No. 3319 of 2012 was filed seeking such a direction to respondent No.1. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.1 vide order dated 29.12.2012 on the ground that there were no vacant posts in the non-scheduled area. In 2016, the petitioner was transferred to Government College, Bhairamgarh on administrative grounds from the Government Kaktiya Post Graduate College, Dharampura, Jagdalpur. The Principal of the College submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department, Ministry of Human Resources, requesting cancellation of the transfer on the ground that there was no other professor of Sociology subject in the college. (iii) Respondent No.4/the Principal, issued a show-cause notice dated 4.12.2018 to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had published his literature work online without obtaining prior approval of the department. It was also stated that the act of the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The petitioner was directed to submit his explanation and relevant documents. It is pleaded that the petitioner had written a number of books and those books -4- have been published on the website “Anakhar.com”. The petitioner was also operating another website styled as “Ummaten.blogspot.com”. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 4 was in a habit of making complaints against her colleagues. In the last week of January, 2019, respondent No.4 acted with high jealousy and malafide intention and levelled various allegations against the petitioner. In response to this, the petitioner raised his voice against respondent No.4. An explanation was sought from the petitioner by respondent No.2. The petitioner submitted his explanation through the proper channel to respondent No.2 on 28.12.2018. An inquiry committee consisting of two officials was constituted and a report was submitted. 4. Earlier, WP(S) No. 1687 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner challenging the notice (Annexure P/1) dated 4.12.2018, wherein a prayer was also sought to direct respondent No.2 to submit a written report regarding the possession of respondent No.5 in Government Quarter No. E-6, Professor Colony Dharampura, Jagdalpur from the years 2008 to 2018. The writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner on 11.3.2019. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.4 with ulterior motive and malafide intention issued the show- cause notice dated 4.12.2018. He would contend that there was no reason or occasion for respondent No.4 to issue such a notice. 5 He would also contend that publishing literature is not misconduct defined under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1965. He would also contend that the petitioner is a writer, he has written various literature books and articles and that the notice (Annexure-P/1) may adversely affect his career. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that no interim relief has been granted to the petitioner against the show-cause notice dated 4.12.2018. He would further contend that no inquiry has been initiated yet pursuant to the show cause notice. It is argued that respondent No.4 has already got retired from the services. It is also submitted that the petitioner was directed to submit permission granted by the superior authorities for the publication of literature. He would also contend that the petitioner could not produce material to demonstrate malafide on the part of respondent No.4. He would argue that as no action has been taken pursuant to Annexure-P/1 dated 4.12.2018 and after a lapse of 7 years, there is no possibility of initiating any inquiry against the petitioner. He would also argue that if the department initiates any proceeding against the petitioner, he may challenge it but on a mere apprehension, the petition is not maintainable. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents present on the record. -6- 8. The petitioner has filed this petition against the show-cause notice dated 4.12.2018, whereby he was directed to submit his explanation and relevant documents with regard to permission granted by the department to publish literature. It appears that the petitioner, instead of submitting his reply before the authority concerned, filed this petition. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has published various books and articles on the website. The petitioner has admitted this fact in paragraphs 8.8, 8.9, 8.10, 8.11, 8.12, 8.13 & 8.14 of the petition. 9. In the entire petition, the petitioner has not stated that there was no requirement of permission to publish books or articles, either online or offline, or that permission was granted by the Competent Authority in this regard. With regard to malice, the petitioner has not provided any concrete material to infer that the notice (Annexure-P/1) dated 4.12.2018 was issued by respondent No.4 on account of malice. A perusal of Annexure-P/1 would show that it is a simple notice directing the petitioner to submit the relevant documents. 10. Learned State counsel informed this Court that no inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Annexure-P/1. It was also stated that there is no possibility of initiation of any inquiry in the near future, after a lapse of 7 years. Shri Prateek Tiwari further informed that respondent No.5 has already got 7 retired from the services. Further, if the department initiates any proceeding against the petitioner, he would be at liberty to challenge it but on a mere apprehension, no order can be passed. 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi