1 2025:CGHC:42584-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 613 of 2025 1 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Sabha, Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 03). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), (Respondent No. 01) 2 - Collector District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 02). 3 - 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 Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), (Petitioner). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate. For State : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Rishabh Bisen, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 22.08.2025 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.3406 of 2022 whereby the writ petition filed by the employee-respondent No.3 herein was allowed Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.08.23 12:13:52 +0530 2 directing the appellant herein to reinstate the employee without backwages. 2 Facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition are that, initially the respondent No.3 was appointed as Shiksha Karma-III on 29/06/2007 and was posed at Government Primary School, Saja. On 20/12/2013, a show cause notice was issued to him on the ground that he has submitted the forged mark-sheet of 10+2 and directed him to submit his response. Pursuant to the same, the employee submitted his reply and contended before the said authority that on the same ground, the employee has already been removed from service on 11/07/2008, however, he was reinstated in service pursuant to the order passed by the Additional Collector, Bemetara. Despite the said reply submitted by the employee, the respondent authorities without following the due process of law and without conducting the departmental enquiry, removed the employee from the service in contravention to Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1998. Against the said removal order, the employee 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 employee. Raising all these grounds, the employee filed writ petition before this court which was allowed by learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal by the Department. 3 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the appeal as well as writ petition. 4 From perusal of record it clearly reflects that the employee was removed from service without following due process of law and without conducting any departmental enquiry as provided under Rule 7 of the 3 Rules, 1998. Further, the order of removal was issued without complying the mandatory provisions of Rule 9 & 10 of Shikhsa Karmi (Recruitment and Service Condition) Rules, 1997. Non compliance of said rule vitiates the entire action of the appellant-department. Thus, learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the petition filed by the respondent-employee relying upon the ratio of law laid down by the co- ordinate Bench in WPS No.6351 of 2019 as the issue raised by the employee herein was settled in that writ petition. 5 After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversity, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 6 The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed affirming the order passed by learned Single Judge. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder