1 2025:CGHC:18422 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1404 of 2018 1 - Smt. Rambati Kashyap D/o Shri Bhim Lal Kashyap Aged About 45 Years (Wrongly Mention In The Impugned Order Bhimram Kashyap) Shiksha Karmi Grade- Iii, Primary School Khamharia, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur R/o Village Semaria, Tahsil And District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For State : Shri Dashrath Prajapati, P.L. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.04.2025 SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, New Raipur in Case No. 445/ Nyayalaya Panchayat/ 2016-17 dated 31.10.2017, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order passed by the Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur, the Collector, and the Commissioner have been affirmed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III vide order dated 23.6.2010 and was posted at Government Primary School, Khamariya, Block Takhatpur. He would further submit that a notice was issued on 1.2.2012 / 3.2.2012 to the petitioner whereby he was directed to submit relevant documents as documents submitted by the petitioner along with the application form were found to be suspicious by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Takhatpur. He would contend that the documents were submitted along with the application form by the petitioner and those documents were duly scrutinized and verified by the employer; therefore, there was no occasion to submit the documents again. He would further contend that the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Takhatpur after verification of the documents, terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated 6.3.2012. He would also submit that the petitioner 3 preferred an appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2012 and the revision preferred before the Commissioner was also dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2014. He would further argue that the petitioner preferred a revision before the State Government and it was dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2017. He would also argue that the petitioner was a regular Shiksha Karmi but no opportunity of hearing was afforded nor any enquiry was conducted. He would state that the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He would also state that the authorities concerned failed to consider this crucial aspect of the matter. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would argue that a notice was issued to the petitioner on 1/3.2.2012, whereby the petitioner was directed to place original documents before the concerned authority and when the petitioner failed to submit original documents, the impugned order was passed according to terms and conditions of the appointment order. He would further submit that the D.Ed certificate submitted by the petitioner was found to be forged and therefore, her services were terminated. He would also contend that as the important documents submitted by the -4- petitioner were found to be forged, therefore, there was no need to conduct any enquiry. He would also submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III vide order dated 23.6.2010. The petitioner worked for about two years under respondent No.4. A show-cause notice was issued on 1.2.2012/ 3.2.2012 to the petitioner whereby she was directed to submit her original documents. It appears that no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before imposing a major penalty of termination of services. The action of respondent No.4 was in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that no opportunity of hearing was afforded and no enquiry was conducted, the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer dated 6.3.2012, the order passed by the Collector dated 12.10.2012, the order passed by the Commissioner dated 22.12.2014, and the order passed by the State Government dated 31.10.2017 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat to initiate a fresh proceeding, if so advised. The authority concerned is also directed to afford a proper opportunity 5 of hearing to the petitioner. The enquiry shall be conducted strictly in accordance with the law. 7. As a fallout and consequence of the above discussion, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service forthwith. 8. With regard to the arrears of salary and other benefits, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before respondent No.4 and in turn, the authority concerned is directed to take an appropriate decision on such representation expeditiously, preferably within a period of 120 days. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi