1/5 (WPS No. 5457 of 2016) 2025:CGHC:6864 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 5457 OF 2016 1. Sanjay Kumar Rathor, S/o Nand Lal Rahor, aged about 35 years, Occupation-Service, R/o Asoda, Gram Nandorkhurd, Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Janpad Panchayat, Baloda, through: its Chief Executive Officer, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocate. ] For Respondent No.1/State :- Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 :- None, though served. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Single Bench ] Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board (06-02-2025) 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the Order dated 7.4.2016 (Annexure P-1) by which the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baloda, District Janjgir- 2/5 (WPS No. 5457 of 2016) Champa has terminated the services of the Petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi (Grade-III), on the ground that the Petitioner has obtained service on the basis of forged Higher Secondary School Certificate (12th class mark-sheet). 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that on 22.11.2007 the Petitioner was appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi (Grade-III) and subsequently, on 13.6.2013, his services were regularized. According to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, as per Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2007 (for brevity, Rules of 2007), the General Administrative Standing Committee of the Janpad Panchayat shall be the Disciplinary Authority for major punishment and the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat can only imposed minor punishment and not major punishment and therefore the impugned Order (Annexure P-1) is liable to be set-aside. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the impugned Order has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat and not by the State Authority. 3/5 (WPS No. 5457 of 2016) 4. I have heard learned Counsels for parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. 5. Admittedly, the Petitioner was appointed by the Janpad Panchayat by Order dated 22.11.2007 on the post of Shiksha Karmi (Grade-III) and subsequently he was regularized on the said post on 13.6.2013 and ultimately by Order dated 7.4.2016 (Annexure P-1) his services were terminated by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baloda. However, the Petitioner’s appointment order dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure P-3) clearly provides that major punishment will be awarded by the General Administrative Standing Committee of the Janpad Panchayat. In this regard, Rule 10 of the Rules of 2007 would be pertinent to notice herein under:- “10. Discipline and Control.- Shiksha Karmis shall be under the administrative control of Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat as the case may be. The general administrative standing committee of Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat as the case may be shall be the disciplinary authority for major punishment and CEO of concerned Panchayat shall be the disciplinary authority for minor punishment.” 4/5 (WPS No. 5457 of 2016) 6. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of major punishment is the General Administrative Standing Committee of the Janpad Panchayat and as regards the minor punishment it would be the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat. 7. In the instant case, the impugned Order (Annexure P-1) imposing major punishment of termination of the services of the Petitioner, has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Jannpad Panchayat, Baloda who can only impose minor punishment, as per Rule 10 of the Rules of 2007. In that view of the matter, the impugned Order (Annexure P-1) is set-aside/quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Competent Authority for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. 8. Since the allegation against the Petitioner is with regard to submission of a forged Higher Secondary School Certificate, order of reinstatement is not being granted. However, the Competent Authority shall consider the case of the Petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months 5/5 (WPS No. 5457 of 2016) from the date of receipt of this Order, considering the fact that the Petitioner’s services have been terminated way back in the year 2016. 9. The Writ Petition stands partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) sharad Judge SHARAD KUMAR YADAV Digitally signed by SHARAD KUMAR YADAV Date: 2025.02.10 17:15:47 +0530