1 2025:CGHC:12997 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3406 of 2022 1 - Sanjay Kumar Verma S/o Shri Vishram Verma Aged About 38 Years Working As Ex-Assistant Teacher Panchayat Verg-3, Govt. Primary School Tildabandha, Block Simga, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector District Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Sabha, Simga, District Baloda- Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Bhupendra Shrivas, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Siddhant Das, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 19/03/2025 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.03.22 10:51:43 +0530 2 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition and prayed for following relief: “10.1. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash order (Annexure P-1) and petitioner may be reinstated in service with all consequential benefit, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition are that, initially the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karma-III on 29/06/2007 and was posed at Government Primary School, Saja. According to the petitioner, on 20/12/2013, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the ground that he has submitted the forged mark-sheet of 10+2 and directed the petitioner to submit his response. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted his reply and contended before the said authority that on the same ground, the petitioner has already been removed from service on 11/07/2008, however, he has been reinstated in service pursuant to the order passed by the Additional Collector, Bemetara. Despite the said reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent authorities without following the due process of law and without conducting the departmental enquiry, removed the petitioner from the service in contravention to Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1998. Against the said 3 removal order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, which was rejected on 04/11/2016, thereafter, the Commissioner and the State Government have also rejected the case of the petitioner. Thus this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been issued without complying with the provisions of Rule 9 & 10 Shiksha karmi (Recruitment and Service Condition), Rules, 1997 (for short “the Rules, 1997”). As such, termination is bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the co- ordinate Bench of this court in WPS No 6351 of 2019 has already examined the facts which are involved in the present case and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner without back-wages. He would further submit that the issue is squarely covered by the decision passed by this court in WPS No 6351 of 2019 wherein this court has passed the following order: “7. Having considered the view of this court in the aforesaid order and the fact that it has based upon the earlier decision of this court wherein it has been specifically held that for terminating an employee from service whose services are governed under the Rules of 1999, it is incumbent upon the respondents to have initiated the proceedings as is required under Rule 7. 4 8. Non-compliance of the said rule vitiates the entire action on the part of the respondents. The impugned order in the instant case dated 29-6- 2009 is, thus unsustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed with consequences to follow. 9.However, this court is of the view that since the petitioners have not discharged their duties during the intervening period, they would not be entitled for the wages for the intervening period. However, the said period would be counted for the purpose of continuity in service. 10. Needless to mention that since the writ petition is being allowed on the ground of non-compliance of Rule 7, the right of the department would stand reserved if they feel so may initiate proceedings in accordance with the said rules” 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission mainly contending that the petition is suffered from delay and laches, as such, liable to be dismissed on this count alone. On merits, it has been contended by respondents that show cause notice was replied by the petitioner, as such, removal order was passed on 23/24.01.2014 and services of the petitioner has been terminated. They further submit that in view of above factual matrix, it cannot be said that the action of respondent 5 No.3 is unjustified or illegal and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 6. From the records, it is quite vivid that the procedure provided under Rule 9 & 10 of the Rules, 1997 has not been followed and the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 6351 of 2019 has already examined the same issue. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the judgment passed by this Court in WPS No. 6351 of 2019, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court on WPS No 6351 of 2019 on 8-11-2021 directing reinstatement of the petitioner without back-wages and also granting liberty to proceed further in accordance with Rule, 7 of the Rules, 1997. 7. Consequently, pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep