1 2025:CGHC:14328 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2699 of 2022 1 - Horilal Verma Aged About 38 Years Shiksha Karmi, Grade Iii (Terminated), S/o Shri Radhe Shyam Verma, R/o Village Bodra, P.O. Bhothidih, Tahsil Magarload, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Block Education Officer, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shantam Awasthi, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 25/03/2025 1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner who was posted as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) Faculty of Arts at Primary School Padarpara, Madanar on 10/06/2010, is questioning the order dated 01/03/2017 (Annexure-P/1), whereby, the CEO, Janpad Panchayat after exercising the power conferred under Rule 10 read with Rule 05 (ख) (छ) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 19991, 1 The Rules, 1999 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.03.26 17:00:21 +0530 2 imposed the punishment of termination only on the basis of charge-sheet issued against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order impugned whereby the punishment of termination has been imposed by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Rule 7 of the Rules 1999. He would further submit that on 27/07/2015, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet, but he could not reply the same because of unavailability of sufficient documents, and on that basis the disciplinary action has been initiated against him. He would also submit that though the petitioner had requested the authorities for supplying of necessary documents, in absence of the supplying of the said documents, he could not reply the charge-sheet. Subsequently, the respondent/Janpad Panchayat proceeded in the Departmental Proceeding and without adhering the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules 1999, passed the impugned order of termination, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Per Contra, learned counsel opposes the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the writ petition has been filed after delay of 5 years as the termination order has been passed on 01/03/2017 and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2022. He would also submit that there is statutory provisions of appeal before the Collector under Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal And Revision) Rules, 1995, but without availing the said remedy, the petitioner has approached before this Court. He would next submit that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, however, the petitioner 3 failed to reply the show cause notice, and as such the impugned order has been passed, which is just and proper and there is no illegality in the said order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents annexed with the writ petition. 5. Looking to the submission of the respondent that the Writ Petition has been filed at belated stage i.e. after 5 years of passing of the impugned order dated 01/03/2017 and the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy available under Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal And Revision) Rules, 1995, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach before the Appellate Authority i.e. Collector to question the order dated 01/03/2017 (Annexure-P/1) within a period of 30 days. It is directed that in case of filing an appeal by the petitioner within the stipulated period before the Appellate Authority/Collector, the Collector. without going into the issue of delay occurred in filing the appeal before him, shall consider the same in accordance with law and on its own merits, particularly keeping in mind that the Rule 7 of the Rule 1999 has not been followed while imposing the punishment of termination upon the petitioner and shall decide the appeal within a further period of 50 days from the date of filing of the appeal by the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid liberty/directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul