1 2025:CGHC:2382 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 83 of 2025 1 - Ghasiram Chouhan S/o Uderam Chouhan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kamarid, Post Tanaud, P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa(C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner,bilaspur Division District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector, Janjgir Champa District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 4 - Sub Division Officer (R) Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchyat Janjgir Champa District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 6 - Chief Exective Officer Janpad, Panchayat Pamgarh District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 7 - Punita Kumhar D/o Nanhuram Kumhar, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kamarid, Post Tanaud, P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa ( C.G.) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anish Tiwari and Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocates For State : Mr. Risabh Bisen, PL For Caveator : Mr. Ramesh Nayak, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.01.17 18:45:15 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 15/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning impugned order dated 20/12/2024 passed by Respondent No. 2/Commissioner, whereby the revision preferred by respondent No.7 was allowed and the matter was remitted back to Respondent No.4/Sub Divisional Officer for fresh consideration on the ground that proper opportunity to cross-examine was not afforded to Respondent No.7. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sufficient opportunity was granted to respondent No.7 to cross-examine the Inquiry Officer who has /prepared the inquiry report. Inspite of the said fact and without considering the same, the Commissioner has remitted the matter back to the SDO for fresh consideration under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Adhiniyam, 1993’). 3. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State as well as for the Caveator would submit that the Commissioner has rightly observed in its order that the main Inquiry Officer who has conducted the inquiry has not been examined and no opportunity to cross-examine him was afforded to respondent No.7, and the order under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 has been passed against the respondent No. 7. 3 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned placed before this Court. 5. It appears from the order impugned that the person who has submitted the Inquiry report under whose leadership the inquiry was conducted was not examined and no opportunity to cross- examination to the said officer was afforded to respondent No.7. Hence, the order passed by the Commission remitting back the matter for afresh adjudication of proceeding under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 against respondent No.7 is just and proper and there is no illegality in the order impugned. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The Sub Divisional Officer is directed to conclude the proceeding under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 within a period of 45 days from today. Sd/- Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul