Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10653 (CHH)

UMESH KUMAR SAHU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/3795/2018 · 2026-03-16

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:12791 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3795 of 2018  Umesh Kumar Sahu S/o Keshavram Sahu, Aged About 44 Years R/o Laxmi Nagar, Pachpedinaka, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Gudiyari, Raipur, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Executive Engineer, City Division, North Raipur, C.S.P.D.C.L. Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None. For State : Mr. T.L. Bareth, P.L. For Respondents No. 2 and 3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Adv. on behalf of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Adv. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 17.3.2026 1) Learned counsel for the respondent/CSPDCL submits that petitioner who was working on the post of Operator Grade-II (Line) Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.03.17 17:11:19 +0530 2 under CSPDCL was earlier removed from services on the basis of conviction in criminal case but his conviction was set aside by learned Addl. District Judge, North Bastar Kanker vide judgment dated 5.1.2017. He further submits that thereafter a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and final decision has been taken by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 22.2.2023 and petitioner has been removed from services. He contends that said order has not been challenged by the petitioner in this petition. 2) Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has already been removed from services vide order dated 22.2.2023 and said order has not been challenged in this petition, therefore in my opinion, this petition is not maintainable. 3) Consequently, this petition stands dismissed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a