1 2025:CGHC:17799-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 251 of 2025 Smt. Vibhawari Singh Thakur W/o Jitendranath Thakur Aged About 59 Years Principal Government Higher Secondary School Hardi, Block Sarangarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - L.P. Patel (Laxmi Prasad Patel) S/o Shri Ishwar Prasad Patel Aged About 59 Years Working As A In-Charge District Education Officer Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.24 12:51:33 +0530 2 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 for respondent / State on I.A. No.02/2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 04 days in filing the instant appeal. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.02/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 8122 of 2024 (L.P. Patel (Laxmi Prasad Patel) 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. 5. Briefs facts of the case are that the respondent No. 01 is holding the substantive post of Principal, Government Higher Secondary School. He filed WPS No. 8122/2024 before the High Court challenging his transfer orders dated 29/11/2024, 03/12/2024, and 3 04/12/2024. By the said orders, he was transferred from the post of In-charge District Education OfÏcer, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh to Principal at Govt. H.S. School, Hardi, and the appellant was posted/appointed in his place. His relieving was processed by respondent no. 04 and executed by the present appellant. A complaint was filed on 06/03/2024 by "Poorv Chhatra Sangh Parishad" to the Education Minister and the respondent no. 02, alleging involvement of respondent no. 01 in a sex racket, exam malpractices, illegal fee collection, and discrimination against SC/ST students. Further complaints followed on 12/03/2024 and 13/03/2024 by students and ex-students to various authorities requesting his transfer. A preliminary enquiry was ordered. The DEO, Sarangarh- Bilaigarh issued notices to respondent No. 01 on 15/04/2024 and 24/04/2024, but he failed to respond or appear for the enquiry. However, the enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report dated 08/05/2024 highlighted that respondent No. 01 did not comply with a prior transfer order dated 28/03/2024, amounting to insubordination. It noted his previous suspension due to excess fee collection, recommended disciplinary action for irregularities in Open School exams, and confirmed the arrest of two girls from his government residence, leading to his suspension. The respondent No. 01 deliberately suppressed material facts while filing the writ petition. Despite the appellant placing all relevant information before this Court, these suppressions and evidentiary materials were not duly considered. In his rejoinder, respondent No. 01 deceptively relied on an exoneration order dated 19/02/2024, which pertained 4 solely to his previous posting at Government Higher Secondary School, Kapan, and did not address the serious allegations that formed the basis of his transfer and suspension. Furthermore, respondent No. 01 has consistently abused the process of this Hon'ble Court for personal benefit by concealing material facts and engaging in grave misconduct, including abuse of ofÏcial position, unlawful collection of fees, immoral activities at his government residence, and discriminatory actions against SC/ST students- rendering him undeserving of any equitable or protective relief from this Court. The learned Single Judge erred in quashing the transfer order of respondent no. 01 by failing to consider his serious misconduct, including moral turpitude, insubordination, and misuse of ofÏcial position. The learned Single Judge overlooked material facts, including an ongoing disciplinary enquiry and verified complaints from students and stakeholders. The respondent no. 1, only holding a temporary charge, had no vested right to the post and was transferred in public interest to protect the integrity of the education system. Despite clear findings in the enquiry report and the respondent's non-cooperation, the learned Single Judge granted relief based on seniority alone, disregarding administrative exigency, suppression of facts, and the broader implications for students and staff. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the deceptions and false submissions made by respondent no. 01 while passing the impugned order and also failed to appreciate that the writ petitioner (respondent no. 01 5 herein), having been found involved in gross dereliction of duty and serious acts of moral turpitude, had rendered himself unfit to continue holding the sensitive post of In- charge District Education OfÏcer, a position requiring the highest standards of integrity and professional conduct in the interest of students, staff, and the education system at large. The learned Single Judge overlooked the necessity to protect the rights of the students and has effectively left the complainants vulnerable to the actions of respondent no. 01 and failed to appreciate that respondent no. 01 did not comply with the order dated 28/03/2024 directing him to join as Principal at Government Higher Secondary School, Dhansir, Block Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, thereby exhibiting clear insubordination, which warranted disciplinary action rather than protection from this Court. The learned Single Judge overlooked the findings of the enquiry report dated 08/05/2024, which clearly established serious misconduct on the part of respondent no. 01, including irregularities in Open School Examinations, illegal fee collection, and the presence of call girls at his government residence, leading to his suspension from service and erred in granting relief to respondent no. 01 despite the fact that the transfer was made in public interest and also in the interest of the administration due to multiple complaints from various stakeholders, including students, public representatives, and educational authorities, which were duly investigated and found credible. The learned Single Judge also overlooked the fact that respondent no. 01 deliberately misrepresented the scope of the 6 order dated 19/02/2024, which only exonerated him from specific charges related to his previous posting and did not absolve him of the serious allegations that led to his transfer and suspension and did not consider that the transfer order dated 29/11/2024 was issued to ensure smooth functioning of the ofÏce of the District Education OfÏcer, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, as the presence of respondent no. 01 had caused disruption and administrative difÏculties due to his misconduct and unprofessional behavior. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made be learned counsel for the appellant 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. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner observing that it is evident vide order dated 13.3.2024, the writ petitioner was made Incharge District Education OfÏcer in place of one S.N. Bhagat, however, said S.N. Bhagat has got an order of stay from this Court in WPS No.1793 of 2024, as such the writ petitioner could not be posted as Incharge District Education OfÏcer at Sarangarh - Bilaigarh. When said S.N. Bhagat retired then only on 7 12.8.2024 the writ petitioner was posted as Incharge District Education OfÏcer and thereafter within four months on 29.11.2024 the impugned order has been passed. While issuing the transfer order the writ petitioner was being replaced by respondent No.4 who is very junior to the writ petitioner. In the circulars dated 4.8.2011 and 14.7.2014 the State Government has specifically issued directions that while posting any Incharge seniority of the ofÏcer is to be considered and only the senior most ofÏcer can be made Incharge of any department or institution. In the present case, Smt. Vibhawari Singh Thakur who is junior to the writ petitioner has been made Incharge District Education OfÏcer in place of the petitioner and the petitioner was reverted back to his original place of posting ignoring the seniority of the writ petitioner. When the State Government has issued circulars that seniority-cum- merit is to be considered while giving posting as Incharge ofÏcer, the authorities should adhere to the circulars issued by the State Government. From perusal of the impugned order, it seems that the circulars issued by the State Government have not been taken into consideration and the impugned order has been passed in a very cursory manner. 10. 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 8 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. 11. 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