1 2025:CGHC:39317 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1713 of 2023 1 - Smt. Sarita Khare W/o Shri Manoj Kumar Khare Aged About 43 Years Teacher Panchayat Government Middle School, Pandwaniya, Gaurella Block, District - Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi (Formerly District – Bilaspur) (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur Through Chief Executive Officer, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Gaurella, District - Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi (Formarly District - Bilaspur ) (C.G.). 3 - The Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S. B. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, G.A. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/08/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1) Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for all the records and after it's perusal, quash the order of C.E.O. (Annexure P-18) and also order of Additional Commissioner (Annexure P-20). 10.2) That as a consequence, Hon'ble Court be pleased to further direct the respondent no.1 to pay the full salary to the petitioner from the date of her termination till the date she rejoins her duty & to post her as per prayers made by her in some school near the villages proposed by her near any school near village Seepat. 10.3) That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to direct respondents to pay damages and cost of the petition. 10.4) Hon'ble Court may grant any other relief it deems necessary in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the respondent authorities initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, in pursuance whereof a communication dated 05.12.2015 was issued . In reply 3 thereto, the petitioner submitted her representation before respondent No. 2, stating inter alia that her husband is a kidney transplant patient who is required to visit MMI Hospital, Raipur, every month for post-operative check-ups. It was further submitted that her husband is the only son of his septuagenarian father and that his mother, having donated her kidney to him, frequently suffers from ailments, thereby requiring constant care. The petitioner also pointed out that she has two minor children and no other family member is available to look after her husband and parents-in-law in her absence, thus rendering her unable to join at the place of posting in the village. Subsequently, the report of the Block Education Officer dated 03.10.2016, the resolution of the General Administration Committee dated 05.10.2016, and the order of termination dated 05.11.2016 came to be passed. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division. However, the learned Additional Commissioner, without due and proper appreciation of the legal and factual issues involved, was pleased to dismiss Appeal No. 83A-89/2018-19 vide order dated 02.01.2023. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was serving as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II and has been arbitrarily 4 removed from her services under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. It is contended that such removal has been effected without adhering to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the said Rules. He further submits that no notice was issued to the petitioner, no departmental enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to her prior to the passing of the impugned order of removal. He further submits that the petitioner challenged the said order before the Commissioner, however, the Commissioner has failed to consider the aforesaid vital aspects, namely, that compliance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 was imperative, and that the failure to do so amounted to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 opposing the petition, submits that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of law and after due compliance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant rules. He further submits that all requisite formalities, as mandated under the governing statutory framework, were duly adhered to by the competent authority, and only thereafter was the order of removal from service issued against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the State also submits that they have not 5 filed their reply. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the specific provisions contained under Rules 5 and 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which are required to be scrupulously complied with in their true letter and spirit, it is evident that the mandatory procedural safeguards have not been adhered to. The established principle of affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, being a cornerstone of natural justice, has been disregarded. In the absence of such compliance, the impugned orders dated 05.10.2016 and 02.01.2023 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, both the impugned orders dated 05.10.2016 and 02.01.2023 are hereby quashed. 8. With this observation, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. 9. The quashment will follow the consequential benefits. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat