1 2026:CGHC:76 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 404 of 2025 1 - R.K. Dhruv S/o Late Shri Kuwar Singh Dhruv Aged About 57 Years Posted As Chief Executive Officer, Magarlodh, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant / Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Development Commissioner Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title as taken from Case Information System) For Applicant /Petitioner : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For State / Respondents : Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. Advocate General and Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 02/01/2026 1. Heard. 2. This review petition has been preferred by the applicant for reviewing/recalling the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 5981/2019. RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.01.06 10:40:42 +0530 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that in departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against the applicant, he was held guilty vide order dated 10.07.2019 and he was dismissed from service under Rule 10 (8) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short “CCA Rules”), which was challenged by applicant by filing WP(S) No.5981/2019. That writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 29.08.2025, whereby punishment order dated 10.07.2019 was quashed/set-aside and the matter was remanded to the State Authorities to pass afresh order after compliance with Rule 32 of the CCA Rules. Subsequently, that order was challenged by the applicant/petitioner by filing WA No.857/2025 (Annexure-A/3), which was withdrawn by him with liberty to approach this Court. He further submits that in WP(S) No.5981/2019, the petitioner /applicant had raised specific ground that punishment order dated 10.07.2019 was passed by respondent No.1 without providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after receiving the enquiry report. That fact was also observed by this Court in writ petition in order dated 22.07.2025 but in final order dated 29.08.2025, to which, review has been sought, aforesaid fact has not been observed by this Court, hence leaned counsel prays that order under review dated 29.08.2025 may be modified to the extent, directing respondent authorities to provide due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/applicant on the enquiry report and after compliance of the Rule 32 of the CCA Rules, fresh order may be passed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that Writ petition (S) No.5981/2019 was disposed of by this Court on limited ground raised 3 by petitioner /applicant that punishment order dated 10.07.2019 be passed after compliance of the provision of Rule 32 of the CCA Rules, which was allowed by this Court, at that time the point, which is being raised by the petitioner/applicant was not raised by him while making his submission on 29.08.2025, therefore, the review petition is not maintainable as new fact cannot be considered in the reviewed jurisdiction. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. WP(S) No.5981/2019 (R.K. Dhruv vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another) was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2025 in the light of contention of counsel for the petitioner, which has been noted in para 3 of aforesaid order and the same is reproduced here-in- under :- “3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal, malafide and contrary to the law applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. He would further submit that the impugned order has been passed without complying the provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules 1966, as opinion sought for by respondent No.1 has not been supplied to the petitioner prior to passing of impugned order. Hence, it is prayed that this petition may be allowed and relief as sought for by the petitioner may be granted.” 7. In the light of aforesaid order, the Writ Petition (S) No.5981/2019 was disposed of by this Court remanding the matter by setting aside the punishment order dated 10.07.2019 passed by respondent No.1. 4 Operating paragraph 10 to 13 of the order dated 29.08.2025 are reproduced as under:- “10. In the instant case, it is evident from the impugned order Annexure-P/1 that opinion of the Public Service Commission was sought and respondent No.1 has relied in that opinion, but copy of the opinion of the Public Service Commission was not supplied to the petitioner before passing impugned order of his dismissal from service. Therefore, I feel inclined to allow the instant petition on this ground alone. 11. Consequently, order of punishment dated 10.7.2019 passed by respondent No.1 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the State authorities to proceed afresh from the stage that they referred the matter to the Public Service Commission for consultation and taking a fresh decision in accordance with law after compliance with Rule 32 of Rules 1966. 12. In view of the above discussion and complete non- compliance with a statutory provision, the availability of an alternate remedy of appeal become irrelevant. 13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.” 8. Perusal of aforesaid order shows that the writ petition was disposed of on the ground of limited contention raised by petitioner/applicant that Rule 32 of the CCA Rules has not been complied with, therefore, this Court passed aforesaid order by setting aside the punishment order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the respondent No.1 and the matter was remanded to the State Authorities to proceed afresh from the stage that they referred the matter to the Public Service Commission for consultation and taking a fresh decision in accordance with law after compliance with the Rule 32 of the CCA Rules, 1966. No contention was raised by the petitioner / applicant to demonstrate the fact that 5 while disposing of the writ petition, due opportunity of hearing on the enquiry report submitted by enquiry officer has not been provided to him, as such, having considered limited scope of review jurisdiction, no new fact can be brought in order under review under such jurisdiction. Hence, I do not feel inclined to allow instant petition, hence the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner/applicant may raise all such grounds if he wishes to challenge subsequent order passed by respondent authorities in departmental proceedings. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar