1 2025:CGHC:31364 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6695 of 2025 1 - Amarnath Manhare S/o Peelaram Manhare Aged About 49 Years R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, Parsuram Ward (Motibadi), Bhantapara (M), District Balodabazar- Bhatapara. Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Raipur Division, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Balodabazar-Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Add. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - Smt Sarasvati Yadav W/o Shri Heera Singh Yadav R/o Village - Bitkuli, Janpad Panchayat Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Pardeshin Nishad W/o Shri Panchram Nishad R/o Village - Bitkuli, Janpad Panchayat Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 8 - Smt. Ahilya Bai W/o Shri Bhagatram Dhruw R/o Village - Bitkuli, Janpad Panchayat Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate. Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 For State-Respondents : Mr. K.S. Saini, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 08-07-2025 1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 05-06-2025 (Annexure- P/1) whereby the petitioner’s services have been suspended. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Borsi (B), District Balodbazar- Bhatapara. Certain complaints have been made against him and after preliminary enquiry his services have been suspended by respondent No.3. She would further submit that prior to the complaint made against the petitioner he was already transferred vide order dated 24-04-2025 from Bitkuli to Borasi, but the petitioner was not provided proper opportunity to defend his case and only one day’s time was given to file his reply in the notice given to him. She would also submit that in the complaint made by the villager the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the complaint and no irregularity was committed by him, yet he was suspended by the respondent No.3. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose and submits that there is remedy of departmental appeal provided under the C.G. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is having alternative remedy of filing departmental appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. Considering the fact that the petitioner is having alternative efficacious remedy of filing departmental appeal, this Court is not inclined to go into merits of the case as the alternative remedy of filing appeal under Rule 15 of the C.G. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (in short ‘the Rules, 1999’) is available to the petitioner. 6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to file appeal as provided under the Rules, 1999 3 and the authorities may be directed to consider his case in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame. 7. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by the State counsel, therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to prefer the appeal as provided under the Rules, 1999 in accordance with law within two weeks from today and if such appeal is preferred to the authorities concerned, then the authorities concerned shall decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within three months from the date of filing of the appeal in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge