1 2026:CGHC:19851 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1672 of 2022 1 - Sushil Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Satyanarayan Tiwari Aged About 55 Years Employed As Asst. Block Education Officer Posted At Block Education Office Bastar, District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Joint Director (Education) Bastar Sambhag, Jagdalpur Dist. Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Deputy Commissioner Office Of Commissioner, Bastar Block Bastar Dist. Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Block Education Officer Bastar Block, Bastar Dist. Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Sambhagiya President Sarva Adivasi Samaj Baster Sambhag, Adivasi Vishram Grih, Chitrakot Road, Jagdalpur (C.G.) 6 - Enquiry Officer And Dy. Director Office Of Joint Director (Education) Bastar Sambhag, Jagdalpur Dist. Bastar (C.G.) 7 - Enquiry Officer And Asstt. Director Office Of Joint Director (Education) Bastar Sambhag, Jagdalpur Dist. Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri Anway Tiwari, P.L. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 29.4.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to summon the entire record pertaining to this case from the concerned office and to decide the grievance of the Petitioner in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to Quash and Set aside the Enquiry Officers Notices dated 28.2.2022 (Annexure P-15) and 2.3.2022 (Annexure P-17) in the interest of justice. 0.3 Any other relief deem fit and proper may also be granted.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this petition has been field against the show-cause notice issued by the Enquiry Officer-cum-Deputy Director (respondent No.6), whereas the allegations made against the petitioner have already been enquired into and concluded by the Scheduled Tribe Commission, Raipur. He would submit that the petitioner is being harassed by the respondent authorities and that the findings recorded by the commission have been placed on record as Annexure-P/5. He would pray to quash the show-cause notices dated 28.2.2022 and 2.3.2022 (Annexure-P15 & P/17) issued by respondent No.6. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the enquiry was concluded by the 3 Commission in the year 2020 whereas the notices have been issued to the petitioner by respondent No.6 on 28.2.2022 and 2.3.2022. He would further submit that there is no nexus between the enquiry conducted by the respondents and the notices issued. Consequently, he submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) A perusal of the findings recorded by the Commission would reveal that the decision was taken on 29.1.2022, whereas the notices were issued to the petitioner by respondent No.6 on 28.2.2022 and 2.3.2022. The foundation of the allegations has not been mentioned in the show-cause notice dated 28.2.2022 and 2.3.2022, therefore, it cannot be concluded that the foundation of the show-cause notices and the enquiry which was conducted by the commission is one and the same. 6) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file reply to the show-cause notices dated 28.2.2022 and 2.3.2022 alongwith a copy of the enquiry report provided by the Commission within a period of 30 days. Respondent No.6 is directed to take an appropriate decision after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a further period of 60 4 days. The interim order granted on 14.3.2022 shall remain in force for a period of 90 days. 7) With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi