2025:CGHC:48862 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6749 of 2018 Prakash Sahu, S/o Late Shri Santram Sahu, aged about 43 Years, R/o Old Power House, C/o Verma Pan Center, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh. Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh; 2 - Zila Panchayat Bilaspur Through C.E.O. Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh; 3 - District Education Officer Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 & 3/ State : Shri Suyashdhar Badgaiyya, G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Shri S.B. Pandey, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 09/02/2026 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 24/08/2018 passed by the respondent No.3 by which the services of the petitioner was terminated on account of he being convicted for an offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, III Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No. 05/2017 for 04 years. Thus, holding it be misconduct of under Rule 3 (1) & (3) of C.G. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,1965. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised only one contention that the petitioner was working with respondent No.2 and was absorbed with the ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.17 12:21:51 +0530 -2- State Government vide order date 25.08.2018 and the impugned order was passed on 24.08.2018, thus, the respondent No.2 has no jurisdictional authority to passed an order of termination (Annexure P-1). 3. Learned Counsel for the State opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the order of absorption was passed on 25.08.2018. However, the order specifically speaks that the effect of that order would be from 01.07.2018 by which the services of the petitioner was already absorbed with the State Government with effect from 01.07.2018. Thus there is no illegality or irregularity and jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order by respondent No.3. 4. Respondent No.2 submits that looking to the fact that the petitioner was convicted in a serious offence of moral turpitude. There is no illegality or irregularity in passing the order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record appended in the documents. 6. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that it is passed by respondent No. 3 on 24.08.2018. It also reflects that the petitioner was convicted for 05 years for the offences mentioned here-in-above. The absorption dated 25.08.2018 is placed on record by the respondent/State according to which, the order would have it’s effect from 01st July, 2018 and name of the petitioner also finds place meaning thereby the services of the petitioner was absorbed with the respondent No.1/State Government with effect to 01.07.2018. Thus in view of the above, this Court does not find merits in the contention of Shri Ruparel, Advocate. Thus, this writ petition sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish