1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2850 of 2016 1 - Satish Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Parasram Sharma, Aged About 50 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Sub Engineer, Minimata Bango Dam, Sub Division No. 15, Machadoli, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Ministry At Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resource Department, Sihawa Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer, Minimata Hasdev Bango Project, Water Resource Department, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Engineer, Hasdev Project Division, Rampur/ Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer, Minimata Bango Dam Division No.3, Machadoli, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Sub Divisional Officer, Minimata Bango Dam, Subdivisional No.- 15, Machadoli, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 22.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s); “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to call the entire records pertaining to this case. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus for quashing the impugned dated 28-06-2016 (Annexure P/1) and further the legal right of petitioner on the promoted post of sub engineer, may kindly be protected and he may be allowed to work continuously at his promoted post of sub Engineer, without any hindrance, and further to direct the respondent authorities to not take any coercive criminal HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.08.25 17:07:24 +0530 2 action pursuant to impugned order, treating as no impugned order ever has been passed against the petitioner. 10.3 Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased that, prior to passing any impugned order as such, detail enquiry must be conducted by high level committee, and while doing so petitioner must be given opportunity of hearing to rebut the allegation leveled against him, and further to provide any other relief(s) which it deems fit in the interest of justice alongwith cost of the petition.” 2. Facts of the present case in a nutshell are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Laboratory Assistant in the respondent department, as duly recorded in the impugned order. Since his appointment, he discharged duties with utmost sincerity and without blemish. Considering his length of service and requisite qualifications, the petitioner was recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee and was accordingly promoted to the post of Sub-Engineer vide order dated 05.10.2009, which is also reflected in the impugned order. Since then, he has been discharging his duties on the promoted post with diligence and commitment. Subsequently, a politically motivated and baseless complaint was lodged by one Jitan Singh, claiming to be an office bearer of BJP, Korba, alleging forged appointment and promotion of the petitioner. However, the authorized office bearers of BJP immediately clarified in writing that no such complaint had ever been made by them, and that the said complaint was fabricated by someone misusing the party’s name. Despite such categorical denial, the respondent authorities treated the false complaint as genuine and issued a notice dated 02.06.2016 directing the petitioner to produce his original educational and technical qualification certificates within seven days. The petitioner sought extension of time on account of his father’s illness. However, without affording him an opportunity of hearing, the respondents passed the impugned order demoting him to his original post and further directing initiation of proceedings for lodging FIR against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving as Sub- Engineer in the office of the Executive Engineer, Hasdev Water Division, 3 Korba. He further submits that a complaint regarding the petitioner’s academic qualification was made by one Jeetan Singh, claiming to be a member of the Bharatiya Yuva Morcha, Korba, alleging that the petitioner had secured employment by producing a forged mark-sheet. Pursuant thereto, an internal inquiry was initiated against the petitioner, and without affording him adequate opportunity of hearing, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) was passed, whereby the petitioner was demoted to the post of Laboratory Assistant. It is submitted that the impugned order is illegal, having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without granting proper opportunity of hearing. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions and contends that the petitioner was issued notices on several occasions, which are annexed with the return, and despite the same, he failed to appear in the internal inquiry. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and pursed the record. 6. The issue which emerges from the pleadings and the arguments advanced is that, for the purpose of securing employment, the petitioner had submitted certain documents pertaining to his academic qualifications. It appears that certain complaints were made by some individuals, which the department sought to verify. For that purpose, the respondent department required the petitioner to produce the relevant documents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no notice was issued prior to passing of the impugned order. However, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that reminders/notices were in fact issued, though their service does not appear to be borne out from the record. 8. Be that as it may, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: 4 (i) The respondent–State/competent authority shall supply to the petitioner a copy of the complaint or any material which they propose to rely upon against him, within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (ii) Within a further period of thirty (30) days thereafter, the petitioner shall submit all his relevant documents, including testimonials of his academic qualifications. (iii) Thereafter, if so required, the respondent department may conduct an internal inquiry regarding the genuineness of those documents, in accordance with law. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be afforded due and proper opportunity of hearing during the course of such inquiry. 9. It is further observed that this Court, by order dated 14.07.2016, had stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order. The interim order dated 14.07.2016 shall continue to remain in force until a final decision is taken by the respondent–State pursuant to the inquiry so conducted. 10. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari