1 2026:CGHC:5484 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1180 of 2023 Judgment Reserved On : 21.01.2026 Judgment Delivered On : 31.01.2026 Salik Ram Dadsena S/o Late S.R. Dadsena, Aged About 59 Years, Presently Posted And Working as Assistant Range Officer (Deputy Ranger), Range Devpur, Forest Division Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Conservator of Forest, Forest Circle, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Forest)/Enquiry Officer, Forest Sub Division Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anmay Tiwari, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 3.2.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (Forest)/Enquiry Officer, Forest Sub Division, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (CG). By the impugned communication, the petitioner has been directed to appear for an enquiry involving physical measurement of the petitioner based on a complaint. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned communication dated 03- 02-2023 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 03-10- 2022 (Annexure P- 2). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint dated 25-09-2021. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble court may 3 deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. 3. Necessary facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Forest Guard on 2.1.1990 pursuant to the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee. During the selection process, a comprehensive exercise was undertaken wherein all eligibility criteria, including the petitioner’s height, were verified and found to be in accordance with the prescribed standards. It was only after such thorough verification that the Committee recommended the petitioner for appointment. At the time of his initial appointment, the petitioner underwent medical examination and accordingly, the concerned Chief Medical Officer issued a Medical Certificate in favour of the petitioner on 8.1.1990. The aforementioned Certificate clearly demonstrates that there is no anomaly regarding the petitioner’s physical standards. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Forester in the year 2014 and thereafter to the post of Assistant Range Officer in the year 2020. However, a complaint was filed on 25.9.2021 by the District Vice President, Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress (INTUC) Youth, District Mahasamund (CG) alleging that the petitioner’s initial appointment was improper as he did not meet the prescribed physical standards. Based on such complaint, the respondents constituted a Enquiry Committee for re-measurement of the petitioner’s height. When the petitioner came to know about the same, he submitted a representation 4 stating that the complaint is vague, motivated by personal grudges and intended only to harass the petitioner. Despite submission of representation by the petitioner, no decision was initially taken. Subsequently, a new Committee was constituted to enquire into the matter and respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 16.12.2022 directing the Committee to submit its report within three days. Aggrieved by the constitution of the Committee and directive of respondent No.3, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation. Though the complainant withdrew his complaint. respondent No.3 again directed the Enquiry Committee on 20.1.2023 to measure the petitioner’s height and submit a report. Pursuant to the above, the impugned communication dated 3.2.2023 was issued for re-measurement of the petitioner’s height. It is stated by the petitioner that after attaining 59 years of age and completing about 20-25 years of service, a directive for height re- measurement at this belated stage on the basis of a complaint is in total disregard of the appointment procedures. Hence, the impugned communication is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the entire exercise undertaken by the respondent authorities is per se illegal and is dehors the subject Recruitment Rules and the procedures prescribed under the law. He further submits that the petitioner joined the services way back on 2.1.1990 and has since completed 33 years of unblemished service. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner, in any manner, obtained his 5 appointment by providing some incorrect information regarding his height. He submits that the petitioner’s height was duly examined at the time of entry into service and a certificate to that effect was issued by the Chief Medical Officer on 8.1.1990. He further submits that the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Forester and subsequently to the post of Assistant Range Officer. At the fag end of his service, the petitioner is now being subjected to re-examination of his height only based on a complaint made by an individual, who is the District Vice- President of INTUC. It is submitted that time and again, such practice has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and another Vs. Narendra Singh, 2008 2 SCC 750. He submits that in the present matter, there is not a whisper of any fraud attributable to the petitioner. As such, the impugned communication is liable to be quashed in its entirety. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State argues that the petitioner has been called merely for a re-examination of his height, which cannot be said to be an illegal and arbitrary act. He submits that when adverse information against an employee is brought to light, even by way of a complaint, he cannot object to the verification of the actual facts. In the present case, the height of the petitioner, which is a condition precedent for joining the forest service, has been disputed. Furthermore, the Medical 6 Certificate was not issued by a competent authority. He submits that all these materials go to show that some mischief was committed by the petitioner to obtain his appointment and the possibility of foul play cannot be ruled out. He further submits that since the petitioner has been called only for re-examination of his height, he should appear for the said examination instead of questioning it. He further submits that the State has decided to initiate a departmental enquiry against the petitioner, for which a charge sheet was issued on 28.9.2022 along with the list of charges, list of documents and list of witnesses. As such, unless and until the said Enquiry is concluded, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned communication directing him to undergo a re-examination of his height. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents annexed along with the petition with utmost circumspection. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard way back on 2.1.1990. After getting appointment, he was directed to undergo a medical examination; the same was conducted and a certificate was issued, based on which, he was found fit for the post of Forest Guard. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Forester and thereafter to Assistant Range Officer. Presently, the petitioner has completed about 33 years of unblemished service. At the fag end of his career, the respondents have issued a notice to the petitioner for reexamination of his height based on some complaint made by 7 the District Vice President, INTUC. Throughout these 33 years, the petitioner underwent multiple verification procedures for both appointment and promotion and in all these proceedings and at no stage was any objection raised regarding the height of the petitioner. The petitioner’s service continued without any interruption until the present exercise was initiated on the basis of a complaint. Under these circumstances, the said action taken by the State cannot be deemed bonafide. 8. The State and its instrumentalities have already verified the petitioner’s credentials at multiples stages of his career. In the forest service, height is a fundamental eligibility criteria and it must be presumed that the authorities conducted the necessary verification at the time of his appointment. After a lapse of about 33 years, it cannot be assumed that the concerned authorities failed to conduct such verification. 9. In light of the aforesaid discussion and also considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that issuance of a notice for height verification at the fag end of the petitioner’s service is not in consonance with the applicable Service Rules of the petitioner. Moreover, the said communication was issued solely on the basis of a complaint made by the District Vice President, INTUC. Significantly, it has been submitted at the Bar that the complaint has been withdrawn by the concerned complainant. 10. Be that as it may, since the petitioner was duly appointed and subsequently promoted by the concerned authorities after due 8 verification, I am of the view that the impugned communication lacks factual foundation. Subjecting the petitioner to such a process at this advanced stage of service would constitute an oppressive act by the respondent authorities, which cannot be allowed to continue. 11. Accordingly, the Petition is allowed. The impugned communication (Annexure P/1) and any other subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay