1 / 3 2025:CGHC:14296 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1987 of 2025 1 - Rakesh Jaiswal S/o Kishmish Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 51 Years Occupation - In-Charge Circle Coordinatior (Mandal Sanyojak) Rajpur, R/o Village And Post Pandari, Block- Wadrafnagar, Distt.- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector, Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer, Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) 2 / 3 For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 25/03/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 18/02/2025 (Annexure P/1) and further seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to perform his duties as In-charge Circle Coordinator. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that while the petitioner was working as Teacher, by order dated 15/03/2024, the additional charge of Circle Coordinator, Rajpur was given to the petitioner, however all of a sudden on 05/02/2025, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging therein that he is not performing his duties properly and asked him to submit his response to which the petitioner submitted his reply and denied the allegations levelled against him, however, without appreciating the reply in a proper manner passed the order impugned and withdraw the additional charge given to him in an illegal and arbitrary manner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would support the impugned order and submit that the petitioner’s original post is Teacher and only the charge of Circle Coordinator was given to him however, he has not performed the duties in a proper manner and even in respect of death of one student, he has not submitted proper response and hence, for smooth functioning of the work, the additional charge has been withdrawn 3 / 3 from the petitioner and handed over to one Shri Santosh Singh but he has not been impleaded as a party/ respondent in the petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Bare perusal of the pleadings and the documents, it is crystal clear that the petitioner’s original post is Teacher and looking to the administrative exigency at the relevant point of time, the additional charge of Circle Coordinator was given to him. However, on account of some irregularities found in discharging the duties, a notice was issued to him and after receipt of reply, the order impugned has been passed by withdrawing the charge of Circle Coordinator from the petitioner. Thereafter, the said charge has been handed over to Mr. Santosh Singh who is not a party herein. The order impugned is only a withdrawal of the charge and the same has been passed in the interest of administrative exigency. Respondents/State being the employer is having every right to take decision for smooth functioning of the Department. Thus, the action of the State cannot be termed as illegal and arbitrary. 6. In view of the forgoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar