1 2025:CGHC:17797-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 249 of 2025 1 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 04 In W.P.S) 2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Churiya District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 05 In W.P.S) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Saraswati Bai W/o Ramesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Sitakasa, Tahsil Churiya District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Petitioner In Wps) 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Panchayat Rural Development Department Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 01 In Wps) 3 - Commissioner Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 02 In Wps) 4 - The Additional Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 03 In Wps) 5 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Sitakasa, Tahsil Churiya District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 06 In Wps) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. and Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.24 12:51:32 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate and Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for respective respondents. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2410 of 2015 (Smt. Saraswati Bai vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge with a direction to be reinstated with 30% back wages and is also challenging the order dated 18.10.2024 passed in REVP No. 224 of 2024, whereby the review application filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 4. Briefs facts of the case are that the after following due process of law, the writ petitioner was appointed Executive OfÏcer, Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon. A false complaint and undated complaint was made against the writ petitioner, Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Sitakasa that without taking the work they are making payment. Further allegation is that to near and dearer, they 3 are providing the work under the Rojgar Guarantee Scheme. On the complainant a new process had been adopted, which is unknown to law, by the authority and in Jan Sunvaee, the matter was put, without any notice to the writ petitioner. The Sub Divisional OfÏcer, (Revenue) Dongargaon, come to the conclusion, that there was an irregularities and recommended the disciplinary action against the writ petitioner and others. On that, appellant No.2 herein issued a show cause notice to writ petitioner, Sarpanch, and Secretary vide its notice dated 06/04/2010. No action had been taken against the Sarpanch and Secretary and only the writ petitioner had been targeted, just to give appointment to other person. No proper time was given to the writ petitioner to file the 10 reply and only two days time was granted, that is against the principal of natural justice. All the act was done by the authority with prejudice mind. Thereafter, directly a removal order was passed on 23/07/2010, no inquiry was conducted, nor any opportunity was granted to the writ petitioner to cross examine the complainant or witnesses to prove her innocence. The appellant No.2 herein further not considered, that filling of Muster Roll, is not the duty of the writ petitioner, and it is the duty of MAT as per the regulation had been framed. The reply is filed, but being predetermine, the appellant No.2 removed the writ petitioner form service. Without giving proper opportunity of hearing without supplying any documents or enquiry report, and in utter violation of principles of natural justice, the order was passed which is per se illegal and liable to be set aside. No enquiry whatsoever was conducted, no charge-sheet was served, no-opportunity was 4 granted to the writ petitioner to examine or cross examine the witnesses and in the utter violation of principal of natural justice. Being aggrieved with the removal order, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal to the Additional Collector, and had specifically taken the ground that appellant No.2 had no jurisdiction to passed the order of removal, the appointment of the petitioner was done by appellant No.1 herein, and hence the order of removal is without jurisdiction. Further ground was that no enquiry was conducted no opportunity was granted to the writ petitioner. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Sitakasa, had given reply in the favour of the writ petitioner before the Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon. The Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon, only on the basis that writ petitioner was afforded an opportunity in Jan Sunvaee and hold that opportunity was granted to the petitioner. Further as far as jurisdiction is concern, as by the letter dated 07/05/2010 issued by the appellant No.1 herein delegating the power to CEO, Janpad Panchayat Churiya with regard to disciplinary action against the Rojgar Sahayika, hence appellant No.2 herein is entitled to remove the writ petitioner. Against the order dated 18/01/2011, the writ petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Durg (C.G.) raising all the grounds. The Commissioner, Durg (C.G.), without application of mind, without considering the legal and factual ground, just reproduced the order of the the Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon and not even the change the words, from the orders of Commissioner, Durg, it appears that it is complete misuse the process of law and fulfilling the formalities of filing the appeal and 5 revision to them, as they are not even applying the mind before passing the order. The writ petitioner prays that strict action against such ofÏcer are to taken or otherwise, the formalities of filing the appeal or revision are to stop. The writ petitioner service was removed on 23/07/2010 and before removing the service, recommendation was made by the appellant No. 1 herein for issuance of an advertisement for the post of Rojgar Sahayika was issued on 21/07/2010, this clearly shows that act of removing the writ petitioner was with prejudice and bias mind, hence liable to be set aside. As per the writ petitioner’s knowledge, the advertisement was issued on 23/07/2010. The orders of respondent authority removing the petitioner from service is illegal, unsustainable, unconstitutional, arbitrary, passed with a malafide intention and with an ulterior motive and in utter violation of principal of natural justice and hence liable to be set-aside. Being aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner preferred WPS No. 2410 of 2015, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.12.2023. The appellant herein being aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2023, preferred a REVP No. 224 of 2024, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.10.2024. Hence this writ appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the reason that the writ petitioner has failed to disclose the material fact that the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Sitakasa had already been filled through subsequent selection processes in 2015 and 2017, which were not challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner 6 failed to challenge any of the advertisements issued for the post, making her reinstatement legally untenable as the position no longer exists. The petitioner has deliberately did not place on record the fact that after the petitioner's termination, subsequent appointments were made in accordance with proper procedures, and the appointed candidates have already occupied the post. New incumbent has already accrued her right over the post. The petitioner has not challenged these appointments or the advertisements issued for filling the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Sitakasa. These significant developments render the order for reinstatement impractical to be implemented. The reason that as per the provisions of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, the payment of wages, salaries, and allowances is funded by the Central Government. The funds allocated for the salary of the Gram Rojgar Sahayak post in question were lapsed after the completion of each financial year and have since been utilized for payment to the individuals who held the post after the petitioner. Therefore, the order granting 30% back wages is unsustainable as there are no available funds to meet such an award. This financial reality was not considered by the Hon'ble Court, warranting a review. The order of reinstatement assumes that the termination was entirely without jurisdiction, yet it does not take into account that the petitioner's appointment was contractual in nature, and she was dismissed after being found involved in financial irregularities, including the preparation of a forged muster roll. The decision to terminate her services was 7 based on these irregularities, which were substantiated during the inquiry process. The post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak has been filled through a lawful and subsequent recruitment process, and multiple candidates have held the position since the petitioner's termination. The writ petitioner did not challenge any of these appointments or selection processes. Reinstating the writ petitioner would mean displacing the current appointees, which is both impractical and unjust. The writ petitioner's failure to contest the selection process makes her claim for reinstatement invalid, and thus, the order requires reconsideration. The petitioner, despite having knowledge of subsequent advertisements for the position, did not challenge them at any stage. This failure to challenge the selection process or the appointments of subsequent candidates weakens her claim for reinstatement. This critical fact could not have been placed before the Hon'ble Court, which necessitates filing of review of the order dated 21/12/2023, as it is based on incomplete information regarding the status of the post and the selection process. The learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the termination order solely on the ground that no preliminary or departmental inquiry was conducted. The petitioner was served with show cause notice and given an opportunity to explain her case, which satisfies the principles of natural justice. The writ petitioner failed to challenge the subsequent advertisements and appointments made for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. Since the post was already filled through a fresh selection process, the relief of reinstatement was not maintainable as third party right -already accrued. 8 6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made be learned counsel for the appellants in the present appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein, in which, no interference is sought for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects, allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner holding that it is an admitted position that the writ petitioner was appointed on 08.09.2006 and by the impugned order dated 23.07.2010, he was removed from service. Learned Single Judge further relied upon the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of “Rakesh Kumar Rathore vs. High Court of M.P. reported in 2022 LAB. I.C. 202” and has held that in this case also no preliminary or departmental inquiry was initiated against the writ petitioner. Only a show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner on some complaints and the impugned order was passed. It is also clear from show cause notice dated 06.04.2010 that this order was passed stigma on the conduct, character and work of the writ petitioner and hence, as per the principles of natural justice, opportunity of hearing and inquiry is required in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority also not considered this ground of the writ petitioner and rejected the appeal 9 of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge further rejected the review petition filed by the review petitioners holding that it is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the review petitioners should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. 9. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, in an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet