1 / 4 2025:CGHC:17631 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2585 of 2025 1 - Nirbhay Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Bhenu Ram Sahu Aged About 42 Years Occupation - Service (Posted And Served As Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar), R/o Village And Post - Devinavagaon, Tahsil - Narharpur, District - Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 – Collector, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) & Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) Abhanpur, Tehsil - Abhanpur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 5 – Tehsildar, Abhanpur, Tehsil - Abhanpur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 6 - National Highway Authority Of India Ltd. Through - Project Director, Dhamtari Unit, Block S-5, Shivraj Greens, Sihava Road, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.04.21 11:22:12 +0530 2 / 4 7 - Swami Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director, Narendra Kumar Parakh, D- Quad, New Panchsheel Nagar, Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General For Respondents : Ms. Shreya Pawan Daga, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Adv. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 17/04/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the complete department enquiry proceedings including the notice dated 06/02/2025, charge sheet dated 06/02/2025 and the representations dated 19/07/223 so far it related to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the year 2021, while the petitioner was working as SDO-cum-Competent authority (Land Acquisition) Abhanpur, District Raipur under the Bharatmala Project (Raipur-Visakhapatnam Proposed Economic Corridor Road Construction), the lands were acquired and the award was passed on 18/03/2021. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.7 made a complaint that his lands bearing Khasra No.871/6 and Khasra No.871/20 have been acquired but no compensation has been paid. Thereafter, the respondent authorities initiated the enquiry proceedings and the charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner. He further submits that the entire action has been taken by the respondent authorities behind the back of the petitioner and implicated him in an illegal and arbitrary manner. In support of his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon 3 / 4 the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amresh Shrivastava vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No.10590/2024 and the decision of this Court in the matter of P. R. Dewangan vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. passed in WPS No.493/2018. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the state on the other hand, would support the impugned action of the respondent authorities. He would further submit that, at this stage, this Court should not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings, which have been initiated against the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. The law is well settled that the charge sheet should not be quashed at an initial stage and it is always open to the petitioner to raise whatever pleas are available before the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner has ample opportunity to raise his grievances and any opinion made at this stage may affect the proceedings, which have been initiated. (See: Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (2012) 11 SCC 565). 6. At this juncture, the reliance placed by the petitioner upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble supreme court in the matter of Amresh Shrivastava (supra) and the decision of this Court rendered in P.R. Dewangan (supra) are not applicable to the present case because the facts and circumstances of those cases are distinguishable to the facts of the case at hand. 4 / 4 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Gowri/ $. Bhilwar