1 2025:CGHC:5573-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 63 of 2025 Lakhan Lal Banjare S/o Late Shri Sita Ram Banjare Aged About 46 Years Occupation- Panchayat Secretary (Terminated) From Then Village Panchayat Charbhatti Presently Posted At Village Panchayat Baherapal, Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar, Zilla Panchayat Gariyaband Tahsil- Rajim, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Commissioner Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan Nawa Raipur, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Collector District- Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayat Gariyaband District- Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) 5 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat- Fingeshwar District- Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.31 11:04:30 +0530 2 2. The appellant/writ petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s) in this appeal: “(i) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record of the W.P.(S) No.5406/2020 for its kind perusal. (ii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Appellant/Petitioner’s Writ Appeal and quash the order dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. (iii) That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the termination order dated 01/12/2020 against the Appellant/Petitioner and reinstate him in his services along with all consequential benefits, in the furtherance of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.5406 of 2020 (Lakhan Lal Banjare v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition of the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. 4. Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge are that, appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi in the year 1995 at Gram Panchayat Roba, Tehsil Gariyaband, District Raipur. He was declared Secretary according to the provisions of Section 69 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. In the year 2010, the appellant/writ petitioner was transferred from Gram Panchayat 3 Roba to Gram Panchayat Binauri. In the year 2016, the appellant/writ petitioner was again transferred from Gram Panchayat Binauri to Gram Panchayat Charbhatti and in the year 2019, he was again transferred to Gram Panchayat Baherapal. Some complaints were made on 16.09.2019 before respondent No.4 to the effect that while the appellant/writ was posted on the post of Secretary at Gram Panchayat Charbhatti, he committed financial irregularities. Three member Committee was constituted by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat and a report was submitted on 20.11.2019, wherein, prima facie allegations were found proved. In that inquiry, the statements of the appellant/writ petitioner as well as Sarpanch were recorded. Again an inquiry was conducted by the Committee of three members pursuant to an order issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat and a report was submitted on 19.05.2020. The allegations made against the appellant/writ petitioner were found to be proved. Thereafter, an article of charge was issued against the petitioner on 21.05.2020 according to Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short ‘the Rules of 1999’) by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband. The details of the allegations were also provided to the appellant/writ petitioner on the same day along with the list of witnesses. The appellant/writ petitioner filed reply and denied the allegations vide reply dated 27.05.2020. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband appointed Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer vide order dated 28.05.2020. After completion of the inquiry, the inquiry report was submitted before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila 4 Panchayat. A copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the appellant/writ petitioner and again a show cause notice was issued. During the course of the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer recorded statements of Rekhram Sahu - Audit Officer, Fingeshwar, Rekhram More - Officer of Janpad Panchayat, M.L. Dhurandhar, Assistant Development Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Fingedhwar, Channulal Dewangan, another officer of Janpad Panchayat, Yogesh Sahu - District Coordinator, Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, Devsingh Patel, Yashvant Sahu and Kemuram Sahu and the statement of the petitioner was also recorded. The relevant documents were produced before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer found the allegations proved and thereafter punishment of termination of service was inflicted by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband vide order dated 01.12.2020. 5. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the respondent authorities dated 01.12.2020, appellant/writ petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.5406 of 2020, which was dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2024. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact that neither a proper opportunity of hearing as also cross-examine the witnesses were afforded to the appellant before passing the termination order. It has been contended that the appellant has been ousted from the service without following the proper procedure contained in Rule 7 of the Rules 5 of 1999, which itself shows that how much the higher officials are interested to remove the appellant from his post without conducting any fair trial or enquiry. It has been further contended that learned Single Judge has failed to consider the case of the appellant and passed the order in most equivocal term and demonstrated the case in a wrong way as also he has wrongfully denied the benefit to the appellant, as such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. 9. After appreciating the contentions advanced on behalf of the respective parties as well as considering the material available on record, learned Single Judge has found that though earlier two preliminary inquiries were conducted pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat and the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat but the findings recorded in those inquiries were not taken into consideration to inflict punishment. After receipt of complaints, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat issued 6 article of charge along with statements of allegations and a list of witnesses to the appellant on 21.05.2020. A reply to the show cause notice was filed by the appellant on 27.05.2020. On 28.05.2020, the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The Enquiry Officer examined prosecution witnesses and the appellant was also examined. The Enquiry Officer recorded findings with regard to each article of charge on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence and all the allegations were found proved. After the conclusion of the inquiry, the report was submitted before the disciplinary authority. A copy of the report was supplied to the appellant along with show cause notice on 13.11.2020 and thereafter, the disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of termination from services vide order dated 01.12.2020. The learned Single Judge taking note of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, dismissed the writ petition by observing as under :- “11. After receipt of complaints, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat issued article of charge along with statements of allegations and a list of witnesses to the petitioner on 21.05.2020. A reply to the show cause notice was filed by the petitioner on 27.05.2020. On 28.05.2020 the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The Enquiry Officer examined prosecution witnesses and the petitioner was also examined. 7 12. From a perusal of the record and the documents to the writ petition, it is apparent that no application was moved by the petitioner to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and for the first time, this ground is being raised before this Court. 13. The Enquiry Officer recorded findings with regard to each article of charge on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence and all the allegations were found proved. After the conclusion of the inquiry, the report was submitted before the disciplinary authority. A copy of the report was supplied to the petitioner along with show cause notice on 13.11.2020 and thereafter, the disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of termination from services vide order dated 01.12.2020. 14. From a perusal of the documents to the writ petition and return as well as the record of the departmental inquiry and the scheme contemplated in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, in the opinion of this Court, the disciplinary authority has passed a reasonable order strictly in accordance with law, which does not require interference by this Court, therefore, 8 this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” 10. From perusal of the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.5406 of 2020, it transpires that the learned Single Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 11. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned orders. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 12. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu