1 2026:CGHC:7070 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5755 of 2023 1 - Chandra Shekhar Rai Sagar S/o Late Shri Sukhi Ram Rai Sagar Aged About 50 Years Ex. Assistant Teacher, Grade - Iii, Govt. High School, Koylari Block Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of C.G. Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Ruled Development Ministry Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector District Kabirdham (C.G.) 4 - Zila Panchayat Kabirdham, Through -Chief Executive Officer, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham 5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 6 - District Education Office Kabirdham (C.G.) 7 - Block Education Officer Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State :- Mr.Ashutosh Shukla, P.L. For Respondents No. 4 & 5 :- Mr. Raman Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 09.02.2026 1. The present writ petition is being filed as the learned Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, has illegally dismissed the petitioner’s case on the ground of limitation, despite the petitioner having pursued remedies bonafidely and in accordance with law, and despite the existence of binding orders of this Hon’ble Court in similarly situated cases. The impugned orders are arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, leaving the petitioner with no efficacious alternative remedy except to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to order quashing of impugned order dated 3 14-03-2023 of learned Commissioner Durg Division Durg and to cancel 15/1/2016 2 Sahasper Lohang. order dated 14-03-2023 of CEO Berla and order dated 06-06-2016 of Collector and respondents may kindly be ordered to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 10.2 That cost of litigation and any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly also be awarded.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 04.10.2007 by the Chief Executive Officer, Kabirdham (Annexure P-9) and discharged his duties satisfactorily; however, he was illegally terminated from service w.e.f. 15.01.2016 without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, rendering the termination void and in contempt of the judgment dated 20.04.2018 passed by this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 984/2013 (Rohini Jha & another). The termination is further vitiated as no departmental enquiry could have been initiated after an inordinate delay of more than four years, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Krishna Pandey (AIR 1966 SC 1656). Despite the petitioner bonafidely pursuing remedies in accordance with liberty granted by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 11.04.2016 (Annexure P-4), the Collector, Kabirdham arbitrarily dismissed the appeal on 06.06.2016 (Annexure P- 5), and thereafter the learned Commissioner dismissed the petitioner’s 4 case on the ground of limitation vide order dated 14.03.2023 (Annexure P-1), without considering binding precedents. In contrast, in an identical case of Dhansay, the learned Commissioner, Durg Division, allowed the appeal and condoned delay vide order dated 06.07.2023 (Annexure P- 2), thereby subjecting the petitioner to hostile discrimination. The impugned orders passed by the CEO, Collector, and Commissioner are thus arbitrary, discriminatory, contemptuous of the orders of this Hon’ble Court, and unsustainable in law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law, as the learned Commissioner has ignored the settled principle laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh that the State should not take technical pleas of limitation to defeat a just and bona fide claim of a citizen. It is further submitted that the petitioner approached the learned Commissioner only after withdrawing the writ petition from this Hon’ble Court on legal advice to avail the alternative statutory remedy, and it is a settled position of law that a litigant should not be made to suffer for the fault or advice of his counsel. Learned counsel further submits that in an identical and similarly situated case of Dhansay, the learned Commissioner condoned the delay and allowed the appeal, whereas the petitioner’s case has been dismissed solely on the ground of limitation, which amounts to hostile discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further contends that the termination order dated 15.01.2016 passed by the Chief 5 Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sahaspur Lohara, as well as the appellate order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the Collector, Kabirdham, are ex facie illegal, as they were passed in violation of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III under Janpad Panchayat Sahaspur-Lohara, District Kabirdham, and upon verification of records, discrepancies were found in his mark-sheet, pursuant to which a show-cause notice was issued and, in absence of any reply, his services were terminated vide order dated 15.01.2016 (Annexure P-6). The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the Collector, Kabirdham vide order dated 06.06.2016 (Annexure P-5), after due consideration of the records, finding no illegality in the action of the appointing authority. It is further submitted that the second appeal filed before the Commissioner, Durg Division, was preferred after an inordinate delay of about six years, without any satisfactory explanation, and therefore, the learned Commissioner has rightly dismissed the same as barred by limitation vide order dated 14.03.2023 (Annexure P-1). The order passed by the Commissioner is a well-reasoned, quasi-judicial order passed after examining the entire record and applying judicial mind, and thus does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6 6. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold, as the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on the basis of a forged and fabricated mark-sheet, which came to light upon a complaint, pursuant to which a detailed enquiry was conducted and sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to produce original documents, which he failed to do. After issuance of show-cause notice and consideration of the petitioner’s reply, the competent authority lawfully cancelled the petitioner’s appointment vide order dated 15.01.2016 with the approval of the General Administrative Committee of Janpad Panchayat, Sahaspur-Lohara. It is further submitted that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Collector, Kabirdham on 06.06.2016, and the second appeal filed before the Commissioner, Durg Division, after an inordinate delay of nearly six years, without any satisfactory explanation, was rightly dismissed as barred by limitation vide order dated 14.03.2023. The order passed by the learned Commissioner is a well-reasoned, quasi- judicial order passed after due application of mind and does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, dismissing the petitioner’s appeal solely on the ground of 7 limitation, has resulted in denial of adjudication on merits of the controversy involved. The dispute relates to termination of service of the petitioner and carries serious civil consequences. In such matters, a technical approach ought not to defeat substantial justice, particularly when the record indicates that the petitioner had been pursuing remedies and had approached different forums on legal advice. 9. It is true that the appeal before the Commissioner was filed with delay; however, the order impugned reflects that the learned Commissioner has rejected the appeal in limine without examining whether sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay and without considering the merits of the challenge to the termination order. The power of a quasi-judicial authority to condone delay is meant to advance justice and not to foreclose adjudication in a mechanical manner. More so, when the petitioner alleges violation of statutory procedure and discrimination vis-à-vis similarly situated persons, the matter required a fuller consideration. 10. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is granted an opportunity to have his case considered on merits by the competent authority. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Commissioner to reconsider the petitioner’s appeal afresh, including the question of limitation, after 8 affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. The learned Commissioner shall pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha