1 2025:CGHC:4183-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 43 of 2025 Shyamsundar Agrawal S/o Ramnarayan Agrawal Aged About 41 Years R/o Near Bramhdev Mandir Sahupara, Gudiyari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Education Department, Mantralay, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1) 2 - The Director Lok Shikshan Sanchnalaya, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) 3 - Collector-Cum-President English Medium, Excellence School, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3) 4 - District Education Officer Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 4) 5 - Block Education Officer Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 5) 6 - The Principal Swami Atmanand, Govt. English Medium, Excellence School, Abhanpur, Block Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 6) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.23 16:49:56 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 46 days in preferring the appeal. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 46 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The appellant/writ petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s) in this appeal: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present Writ Appeal and impugned order dated 20.09.2024 may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice.” 3 4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.4917 of 2022 (Shyamsunder Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition of the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. 5. Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge are that, vide order dated 29.10.2021, the appellant/writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer (Commerce) English Medium on contract basis. It was found that one of the student in indecent condition and therefore, he scolded the student that he wouldintimate this fact to his parents, as a counter blast, the parents of the student with other people stages the protest in the school and pressurized the school management to take action against the appellant/writ petitioner therefore, under duress, apology letter was written by him, but without giving any opportunity of hearing or conducting any departmental enquiry, the appellant/writ petitioner has been terminated from the services bide order dated 03.07.2022. 6. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the respondent authorities dated 03.07.2022, appellant/writ petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.4917 of 2022, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2024. Hence, the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that impugned 4 order has been passed by the learned Single Judge is without considering the entirety of the aspects and therefore, the same cannot be allowed. He further submits that learned Single Judge has committed error of law by dismissing the petition, as such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 8. 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. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. 10. 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 the impugned order indicates that an enquiry was conducted against the appellant/writ petitioner in that enquiry the allegations against him was found to be true and the appellant/writ petitioner also made an apology in this regard. It was further observed that the appointment order of the appellant/writ petitioner is contractual and the same is purely temporary and if the work is not found satisfactory the services can be terminated. It has been also observed that the appellant/writ petitioner has misbehaved 5 with the student by physically harassing in school, when he was alone with him in the classroom and also outraged the modesty of student by touching with wrong intentions. State is leveling serious allegations against the appellant/writ petitioner whereas he was raising serious allegations against the student. 11. From perusal of the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.4917 of 2022, it transpires that the learned Single Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 12. In view of the above, we find that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 13. In the result, there is no merit in the writ appeal, which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu