-1- 2025:CGHC:19014 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3604 of 2018 Koushal Prasad Chandrakar S/o Shri B.S. Chandrakar, Aged About 49 Years Patwari, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2- The Collector, (Land Record Branch) District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 3- Sub Division Officer (Revenue) Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4- Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sub Division Officer (Revenue) Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 6- The Tehsildar, Tahsil - Rajim, District Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.04.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- “10. I. This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing and setting aside the impugned memo dated 05.1.2017 along with the notice dated 23.02.2018 (Annexure-P/ issued by the respondent authority. II. The Hon'ble Court kindly inflict the exemplary cost upon the responsible officer of the respondent state for torturing, causing mental torment and exploiting the petitioner and violating fundamental and human rights of the petitioner. III. Any other relief (s), which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2) Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Patwari in the Revenue Department, Chhattisgarh and at the relevant time, he was posted at Patwari Circle No.26, Village Pacheda, Abhanpur, District Raipur. The petitioner was additionally given the charge of Patwari Circle Nawapara. Mr. Choubey further submits that a complaint was made by one Mahesh Banjare alleging that while the petitioner was posted as Patwari at Nawapara, he issued incorrect revenue papers to one Smt. Pancho Bai and her family. Consequently, Pancho Bai sold her property to the New Raipur Development Authority (for short, NRDA). It was also alleged that the conduct of the petitioner and the concerned Nayab Tehsildar was suspicious. Mr. Choubey further contends that a report was called from the Nayab Tehsildar, Abhanpur and responsibility was fixed upon the petitioner by the said authority. The Nayab Tehsildar issued articles of charge along with a show-cause notice and initiated a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. In -3- the preliminary enquiry, it was concluded that the petitioner had caused a loss to the tune of Rs. 5,90,000/- to the State Revenue. Therefore, vide Annexure P/1, the petitioner was directed to deposit the said amount as a condition precedent for participating in the departmental enquiry. 3) Mr. Choubey further submits that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before directing him to deposit Rs. 5,90,000/-., therefore, the impugned memo dated 05.01.2017 and the notice dated 23.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) are bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4) On the other hand, Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, submits that serious allegations have been made against the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted by the Nayab Tehsildar, wherein it was found that the petitioner, along with the Nayab Tehsildar, while posted at Nawapara, issued incorrect revenue documents to Smt. Pancho Bai, who thereafter sold the land to NRDA. The matter was enquired by the Nayab Tehsildar, Abhanpur, who found loss of revenue to the tune of Rs.5,90,000/-; thus, the instant writ petition may be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the file. 6) In the service jurisprudence, there is no provision to debar a delinquent employee from participating in the departmental enquiry and no condition to make deposit or pre-payment of any amount can be imposed for participation in such inquiry. -4- 7) In the present case, though there are allegations against the petitioner and a preliminary enquiry was conducted but the Nayab Tehsildar exceeded its jurisdiction while directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,90,000/- as a condition precedent for participating in the departmental enquiry. Imposition of such a condition was uncalled for and unwarranted. Accordingly, the order Annexure P/2 is issued by the Tehsildar, Rajim Gariyaband, and part of Annexure P/1 dated 05.01.2017 whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the said amount are hereby quashed. 8) Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby allowed. No recovery shall be made from the petitioner till the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, if already not decided. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim