1 2025:CGHC:7654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8168 of 2018 1 - Sandeep Pawar S/o Late Bal Kishan Pawar Aged About 35 Years Occupation- Service, Presently Working As Driver, R/o Irrigation Colony, Jagdlpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Water Resources Department, Chhattisgarh, Sihawa Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Mahanadi Project, Water Resources Department, Shaid Bhagat Singh Chowk, Civil Lines, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Engineer Indrawati Project Division, Water Resources Department, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Sakshi Chhabda, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.02.2025 Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quash the order dated 03/11/2018 passed by the respondent no.3. 2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to pay the salary of the petitioner from 31/01/2015 till the date of reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all consequential benefit. 3) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 4) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant cost of the petition.” 2. Ms. Chhabda, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner who was working in the post of the driver as a contingency paid employee in the office of the Executive Engineer, Tribal Development Pilot Project (T.D.P.P.), Water Resources Department, Division Jagdalpur (C.G.) was removed from services on account of registration of a criminal case for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376(1) of IPC. She would further submit that initially, the petitioner was placed under suspension but after conviction, he was removed from services. She would also submit that the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.115 of 2015 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh and the same was allowed vide order dated 04.07.2018 and thereafter, he was reinstated in service vide 3 order dated 24.09.2018. She would contend that the petitioner joined the services and vide order dated 03.11.2018 without affording any opportunity of hearing and without assigning any reason, the order of reinstatement dated 24.09.2018 was canceled. She would further contend that the order of reinstatement is still in existence and the same has not been canceled by any superior authority. She would lastly submit that the order Annexure P/1 dated 03.11.2018 is bad in law and therefore may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shrivastava, the learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Chhabda. He would submit that the serious offences were registered against the petitioner and therefore, he was removed from services. He would further submit that though the petitioner was acquitted by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.115 of 2015 vide order dated 04.07.2018 but looking at the seriousness of the crime, he was not found suitable for reinstatement. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was placed under suspension, thereafter, he was removed from services without holding any inquiry only on the ground that he was convicted by the learned Sessions Court. The petitioner was reinstated in service after acquittal from the alleged charges. The order of -4- reinstatement was issued by the competent authority on 24.09.2018 and the same is still in existence as it has not been reversed, modified or altered by any superior authority. 6. The Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Raipur without assigning any reason and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, canceled the order of reinstatement, which appears to be erroneous and in violation of the principles of natural justice, therefore, the order dated 03.11.2018 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is reinstated in service pursuant to the order dated 24.09.2018. 7. The petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Raipur claiming therein arrears of salary etc. as in the present petition, the petitioner has nowhere stated that he was not gainfully employed anywhere during these years. If such a representation is made, respondent No.3/Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Raipur (C.G.) shall decide it expeditiously preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha