1 2025:CGHC:61095 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4548 of 2018 1 - Vijay Babu Dwivedi S/o Late Shri Dharmdash Dwivedi Aged About 56 Years R/o M I G , Q No. 05, Junior Keshar Awas Near Aryan School, Rajkishore Nagar, Police Station Sarkanda District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief Public Works Department North Block, Sector - 19, Construction Building New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department Zone - Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department Circle - Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department Bilaspur Division - 2,, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Topilal Bareth, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 15.12.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s); “10.1 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire records of the case. 10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quashed charge sheet dated 23/10/2017. (Annexure P-1) HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.12.17 10:49:49 +0530 2 10.3 Any other relief which may Hon'ble Court think fit in the circumstances.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was working as Assistant Grade-III with the respondents was issued a show-cause notice dated 01.12.2016 (Annexure P/2), alleging that the petitioner was indulging in unnecessary communication directly with higher officials which was stated to be in violation of the Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965. The said show-cause notice was duly replied to by the petitioner on 05.12.2016 and upon consideration of the reply, the show-cause notice was dropped. Subsequently, on the very same set of facts, the respondents initiated departmental proceedings by issuing a charge-sheet to the petitioner. It is contended that the charge-sheet is identical to the allegations contained in the earlier show-cause notice and, therefore, amounts to double jeopardy. On this ground, it is prayed that the impugned charge-sheet may be quashed. He further submits that the petitioner stands retired as of now. 3. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the charge-sheet has been issued inter alia alleging two charges, one of which is altogether different from the allegations contained in the earlier show- cause notice. It is further submitted that even if one of the charges is of a similar nature, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to raise all permissible defences during the departmental proceedings. At this stage, this Court cannot sit in appeal to examine the gravity or correctness of the charges. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet has been issued on the same charges for which the show-cause notice was earlier dropped does not appeal to this Court. A perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that it contains two distinct charges, which are reproduced herein below: 3 आरोप :- " ቦኍ विजय बाबा वि दी , सहायक ቇኔड-3 रा कयलय कयपालन अभियता, लक विन቞ኋण विग, सग ्ቅ. 1. विबालसपा"रा ए सग ्ቅ. 2. विलसपा"रा ቞ኋ$ पादी्ቝग अधि' ቞ኋ$ उन्हा$ स*पा गय दीधियत्, ए शासक.य कताኘ᭦, क ठी1क ढंग स विनहान नहा3 विकय गय। उन्हा$ जबा कई शासक.य कय/ सट क कयरा स*पा गय, विकस न विकस बाहान कय करान स इन्करा कराता राहा, टलता राहा ए शासक.य आदीशा क उल्लघन कराता राहा। ቦኍ विजय बाबा वि दी , सहायक ቇኔड-3 रा अपान विभि्ቐ दी, ज<स अकशा, स቞ኋन्य विष्य विनधि' पासबा"क, ्ቝयकराण, ्ቅ቞ኋ्ቐविता / स቞ኋय቞ኋन तान቞ኋन क विनराकराण क लिलए सबाधि'ता अधि'करा ताक पाቔኋचारा सधि቞ኋता न राखकरा, रिरा्቗ स रिरा्቗ता቞ኋ अधि'करिराय, ताक स अनश्यक पाቔኋचारा विकय, जबाविक उनक अधि'कशा ्ቚकराण विनराकF ता विकए ज चा"क हाG, उसक पाቐኋता उनक रा लगतारा उሴኋधि'करिराय, स अनश्यक्ता पाቔኋचारा विकय गय. यहा ताक विक सKሴኋ पादी, पारा स<'विनक पादी, पारा आसन ज<स ቞ኋहा቞ኋविहा቞ኋ राज्यपाल, ቞ኋननय ቞ኋ"ख्य቞ኋቔኋ, ቞ኋननय ቞ኋቔኋ ज, लक विन቞ኋण विग, छቈኍसगढं शासन, ्ቚ቞ኋ"ख सवि', छቈኍसगढ़ शासन, ताक विन቞ኋण विग, ቞ኋननय स चान आयग, छቈኍसगढं शासन, ቞ኋननय राजिजस्቏ኋरा छቈኍसगढं उሴኋ न्ययलय, ्ቚ቞ኋ"ख अभियता, लक विन቞ኋण विग ए आय"क्ता, विबालसपा"रा सग स अनश्यक पाቔኋचारा विकय। उनक यहा कF त्य विन቞ኋण विग विनय቞ኋल ग-1 क पा<रा 1-115 'ए' क ्ቚ'न, क उल्लघन ए कदीचारा क. ቦኍण ቞ኋ$ आता हा<। इस ्ቚकरा उन्हा,न छቈኍसगढं लिसविल स आचाराण विनय቞ኋ 1965 क विनयन 3 (1) (i) (ii) (iii) क उल्लघन करा लिसविल स ( गTकराण विनयቔኋण अपाल) विनय቞ኋ 1966 क विनय቞ኋ 10 ए 14 क ताहाताU अपान आपाक विगय जचा क लिलए उቈኍरादीय बान लिलय हा<।" 6. The show-cause notice initially issued to the petitioner may have contained an allegation regarding the petitioner addressing communications to higher dignitaries of the State. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner is at liberty to raise this issue before the departmental authority and contend that the proceedings cannot continue on such a charge. At this stage, however, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned charge-sheet. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari