1 2026:CGHC:21922-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 415 of 2026 1 - Ashwani Sahu S/o Shri Chamru Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Budeni Tah. - Magarload, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Tulsiram Sinha S/o Shri Paharuram Sinha Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Silghat, Post Semara, Vikaskhand Kurud, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Tulsiram Kashyap S/o S. R. Kashyap Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Sargiguda, Block - Mainpur Tah. And District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 4 - Pinkuram Sahu S/o Shri Sakharam Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Budeni Post - Bhendri Vikaskhand - Magarlod, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 - Mahesh Kumar Kurre S/o Shri Chandrabhan Kurre Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Indagaon, Post - Indagaon, Vikaskhand - Mainpur, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ... appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Mainpur, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 4 - Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.05.12 10:57:30 +0530 2 For appellant (s) : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate, appearing for the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General for the Respondent/ State. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1079/2016 and other connected matters whereby the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners has been allowed. Thereafter, the writ appellants prefer the instant appeal before this Hon'ble Court with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to allow the Writ Appeal and to quash the impugned order by passing an appropriate order of reinstatement in service with full back wages and consequential benefits in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that all the appellants were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-lll in the year 2007 under the concerned Janpad Panchayat. The bonus marks awarded to the appellants which have been discarded by the respondents while 3 cancelling their appointment pertain to sports, scout, experience etc. On an anonymous complaint, an inquiry was conducted in respect of the selection of 329 Shiksha Karmis out of which 103 Shiksha Karmis including the appellants were scrutinized and subsequently after inquiry, their termination was recommended. The order of termination of the appellants was passed by the Collector, Gariyaband on different dates. The termination was on the ground that there was grave irregularity in making appointment of the appellants by providing the bonus marks for sport related certificates which the appellant No. 1 himself states to have not submitted the same. Looking to the fact that the appellant No. 1 himself has admitted that no sport certificate was submitted by him, Collector Gariyaband vide its order dated 28.02.2015 (signed on 02.03.2015) directed the Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur to remove the appellant No. 1 from service. In pursuance of the order of the Collector, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur removed the appellant No. 1 from service vide its order dated 03.03.2015 (Annexure P-18). The order of the Collector dated 28.02.2015 was challenged before the Commissioner, Raipur Division and the same was affirmed by order dated 10.02.2016 (Annexure P-1). The aforesaid order is under challenge before the learned Single Judge by the appellants and the same is allowed by the learned Single Judge after giving liberty to the respondents to initiate the 4 appropriate proceedings against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the writ appellants have preferred the present writ appeal. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants the appellants were terminated from service without conducting any regular departmental enquiry and without affording adequate opportunity of hearing, despite repeated directions issued by this Court to the respondents to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance with law. The termination orders were passed merely on the basis of a short enquiry, which is wholly violative of the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellants had specifically denied submitting any fabricated certificates and no conclusive finding of misconduct was ever recorded after a full-fledged enquiry. Moreover, under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Bharti Tatha Seva Ki Sharten) Niyam, 1997, the Standing Committee of the Panchayat alone was competent to take disciplinary action, whereas the impugned termination orders were passed by the Collector/respondent No.2, who lacked jurisdiction and authority to terminate the services of the appellants. Therefore, the termination orders are void ab initio and liable to be quashed. The learned Single Judge further erred in granting liberty to the respondents to conduct an enquiry after an unexplained delay of more than eleven years, despite there being no statutory provision permitting such indefinite extension of disciplinary proceedings. 5 5. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the appellants have already suffered prolonged unemployment for no fault attributable to them and that similarly situated employees have been granted relief by the Coordinate Benches as well as by the Division Bench in identical matters. The appellants have also been acquitted in the connected criminal proceedings arising out of the same allegations by judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gariyaband, which completely demolishes the foundation of the allegations against them. Despite such acquittal and absence of any proven misconduct, no direction for reinstatement, back wages or consequential benefits was granted, thereby causing grave prejudice to the appellants. In such circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the appellants are entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits including back wages. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and would submit that the learned Single Judge, after considering the entire material available on record, rightly observed that serious irregularities were found in the selection process of Shiksha Karmis wherein several candidates, including the appellants, had obtained benefit of bonus marks on the basis of doubtful certificates, thereby vitiating the recruitment process. The respondents acted bona fide and in public interest to preserve the sanctity and fairness of public employment. Although the learned 6 Single Judge found procedural infirmities in the manner of termination and granted liberty to the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry in accordance with law, the appellants are not entitled to reinstatement or back wages as a matter of right, particularly when allegations relating to fraud and illegal appointment are involved. It is further submitted that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically confer any right to reinstatement, as disciplinary proceedings operate in a different field and on a different standard of proof. The impugned order strikes a proper balance between procedural fairness and public interest and therefore the present appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge. 8. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents on record, the leaned Single Judge came to the conclusion, which is reproduce hereinbelow:- 10. From the pleadings of the respective parties it prima facie appears that the petitioner did not submit the sports certificate nor the same was referred to in his application but even then he was granted the bonus mark for the same. This fact is also apparent from the document of Annexure P/17 in WPS No. 1079/2016. Documents further go to show that the termination of the services of the petitioners was on the basis of an annonymous complaint and acting 7 thereupon the Collector recommended for the termination of the services of the petitioners which subsequently got affirmed in appeal also. Documents further demonstrate that before passing the termination order the petitioners were not subjected to any regular enquiry. Since, the punishment of termination is a major penalty and that the said termination order came after the petitioners had put in considerable period of service, the proper regular departmental inquiry before passing the termination order was necessary, which has not been taken recourse to in these cases, and thereby the petitioners have been deprived of an opportunity of defending themselves. Thus this Court is of the considered opinion that before terminating the services of an employee who is governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayati Sewa (Bharti Tatha Sewa Ki Samanya Sharten) Rules 1999, it is obligatory on the respondents to initiate the regular proceedings as is required under the relevant rule because its non compliance would vitiate the aforesaid action of the respondents. 11. Be that as it may, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the orders impugned prima facie appear to have been passed dehors the relevant rules, the aforesaid writ petitions deserve to be allowed on the ground of non- compliance of relevant rules applicable to the services of the petitioners by not taking recourse to the proper regular inquiry before terminating their services. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and the orders impugned therein are hereby set-aside. 8 12. This Court deems it necessary to clarify that the respondents would be at liberty to initiate the appropriate proceedings against the petitioners if they so a, but strictly adhereing to the relevant rules. It is futher clarified that in that event the respondents shall pass a detailed reasoned order after dealing with each and every argument put forth by the petitioners before them and also constricting themselves to the legal position holding the field. 13. Petitions thus stand allowed to the extent indicated above. 9. A perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge demonstrates that the writ petitions were allowed primarily on the ground that the termination orders had been passed in complete violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Panchayati Sewa (Bharti Tatha Sewa Ki Samanya Sharten) Rules, 1999. The learned Single Judge recorded a categorical finding that although serious allegations relating to grant of bonus marks on the basis of sports, scout guide and experience certificates were levelled against the petitioners, no regular departmental enquiry as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 was ever conducted before imposing the major penalty of termination. The Court further observed that the petitioners had specifically pleaded that they had not submitted such certificates and yet bonus marks were awarded by the concerned authorities themselves, thereby prima facie indicating negligence or irregularity on the part of the 9 appointing authorities. Reliance was placed upon the judgment rendered in Rooplal Nayak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others 2006 (4) M.P.H.T. 99 (CG), wherein it was held that no major penalty can be imposed upon an employee governed under the Rules, 1999 without holding a formal departmental enquiry akin to a regular disciplinary proceeding. The learned Single Judge also noted that the impugned action was initiated merely on the basis of anonymous complaints and without granting adequate opportunity of defence to the petitioners. 10. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that since the petitioners had rendered considerable years of service and their termination amounted to a major penalty, strict adherence to the principles of natural justice and statutory procedure was mandatory. In absence of a proper enquiry, the termination orders were found to be unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed and the impugned orders of termination were quashed. However, while granting relief to the petitioners, the learned Single Judge reserved liberty in favour of the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the relevant statutory rules and after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 11. Upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and considering the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the facts and applicable legal principles while 10 allowing the writ petitions only on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Panchayati Sewa (Bharti Tatha Sewa Ki Samanya Sharten) Rules, 1999. The learned Single Judge has neither granted reinstatement with back wages nor exonerated the writ appellants from the allegations levelled against them, but has merely set aside the orders of termination on account of violation of principles of natural justice and granted liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with law. Such liberty cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction, particularly when allegations concerning irregularities in public employment are involved. The learned Single Judge has followed the law laid down in earlier decisions of this Court, including Rooplal Nayak (Supra), and has balanced the rights of the employees with the interest of maintaining purity in public service. 12. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika/ Alok