1 2025:CGHC:8069 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5000 of 2012 1 - Ku. Vikas Kumari D/o Bodhan Singh Aged About 24 Years Panchy. Karmi And Secrty. Of Gram Panchy. Mukundpur, Janpad Panchy. And P.S. Lakhanpur, Dist. Surguja C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. Thru The Secrty. Panchy. Deptt. Dks Bhawan Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Surguja Division, P.S. Ambikapur Dist. Surguja C.G., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Surguja C.G. P.S. Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja C.G., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - The C.E.O. Jila Panchy. Ambikapur, P.S. Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja C.G., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - The Chief Exe. Officer Janpad Panchy. And P.S. Lakhanpur Dist. Surguja C.G., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Praveen Das, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.03.25 17:16:21 +0530 2 14.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 01.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division in Revenue Appeal No. 62/A- 89/10-11 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the termination order dated 29.12.2010 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Sarguja has been rejected. 2. This Court while hearing the petition has granted interim protection to the petitioner on 06.11.2012 and in pursuance of stay of removal the petitioner is continued on the post of Panchayat Karmi. This interim order is still continuing. 3. The brief facts as reflected from record are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Rojgar Sahayak on 22.01.2007 in Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act under the respondents No. 4 & 5 in Gram Panchayat Turna. Thereafter, Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.11.2010 alleging certain irregularities committed by the petitioner while discharging her duties as Rojgar Sahayak. It is also the case of the petitioner that before issuance of show cause notice the petitioner has already submitted her resignation on the post of Rojgar Sahayak on 30.06.2010 before the respondent No. 5/Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.). Thereafter, she has joined as Panchayat Karmi & Secretary of Gram Panchayat Mukundpur, Janpad Panchayat Lakhanpur on 30.06.2010. 4. After her appointment as Panchayat Karmi and Secretary she was discharging her duties with sincerity and all of a sudden she was served with the order of removal dated 29.12.2010 mentioning that 3 she was negligent while discharging of her duty as Rojgar Sahayak, therefore, her services were terminated and since her services have been terminated, therefore, 7 bonus marks which have been granted to her for experience as Rojgar Sahayak will be deleted from the marks obtained by her in the selection process initiated for the appointment as Panchayat Karmi & Secretary. Accordingly her marks have been reduced from 48.32 to 41.32, as such, she is not eligible to be considered for appointment and accordingly, her services were terminated. 5. Being aggrieved with this order she has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Surguja. The Commissioner, Surguja Division vide its order dated 31.01.2012 has recorded its finding that termination from service is a major penalty as defined under C.G. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and she has remedy of filing an appeal before the General Administrative Committee of Jila Panchayat. Accordingly she was directed to take recourse available under the C.G. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Thereafter she preferred an appeal before the General Administrative Committee of Jila Panchayat and by meeting dated 30.03.2012 (Annexure P/5), the same has been rejected. Being aggrieved with this order she preferred an appeal before the Commissioner which have been dismissed vide order dated 01.10.2012. Being aggrieved with these orders, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the authorities have not considered the provisions of law and factual matrix of the case that once the petitioner has resigned from service which was accepted by the appointing authority and thereafter she has 4 already joined other service, therefore, order of termination cannot be passed retrospectively as she was no more in service. Therefore, it has been contended that for any alleged act committed by her while serving as Rojgar Sahayak cannot be considered as misconduct while imposing the punishment when she has already joined new services. Thus he would submit that the authorities have not considered vital issue in correct perspective and committed illegality which warrants interference of this Court. 7. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5 vehemently opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the respondents have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order as she has nowhere pleaded that she has resigned and joined the service. It has been further contended that she was selected on the post of Panchayat Karmi & Secretary by adding 7 bonus marks for the services rendered by her as Rojgar Sahayak and no document has been filed to substantiate that she has tendered resignation and thereafter she has been appointed. It has been further contended that the show cause notice was issued to her and the proceedings were pending which prohibits the petitioner to get 7 marks, therefore, the termination order passed by the respondent cannot be held to be illegal warranting interference by this Court and would pray for dismissing the petition. 8. Learned counsel for the State would adopt the same submission. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. From the submissions made by the parties, the pleadings and the documents annexed with the writ petition, it is quite vivid that the petitioner was initially appointed as Rojgar Sahayak and thereafter she 5 has tendered resignation and then only she has joined services on 30.06.2010 and also the fact that she is already working on the post of Panchayat Karmi & Secretary is not disputed by the respondents, therefore whether she has resigned or not has lost its significance as she has already joined new service and there were no averments or documents on record that the subsequent appointment was de-hors the rules. Even the respondents have not filed any document or material on record to suggest that whether any particular period has to be performed as Rojgar Sahayak for granting 7 marks for appointment as Panchayat Karmi and in absence of any such material placed on record it can not be accepted that the subsequent appointment is illegal and liable to be quashed by the respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that since the petitioner’s initial appointment was terminated, therefore, she is not entitled to get the benefit of 07 bonus marks and on the strength of 07 bonus marks only she was appointed, therefore, subsequent appointment is co-terminus with the cancellation of the previous appointment order, as such, the order issued by them is legal and justified. This submission is also being considered by this Court. 12. From record it is not in dispute that the petitioner was subsequently appointed as Panchayat Karmi & Secretary on 30.06.2010 and there she is already discharging her duty and no material is placed on record that 07 bonus marks which have been granted to the petitioner on account of her service as Rojgar Sahayak can be withdrawn if the Rojgar Sahayak is dismissed from service, in absence of any rule made in this behalf under the Panchayat Adhinium, 1993, therefore, I am of the view that the order passed by the respondents deserves to 6 be set-aside and accordingly the order dated 01.10.2012 and 29.12.2010 deserves to be set-aside and accordingly they are set aside. Since the petitioner is already in service in view of the interim order, the interim order passed by this Court on 06.11.2012 is made absolute. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika