1 2026:CGHC:191 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5496 of 2023 Vinod Kumar Verma S/o Shri T. R. Verma Aged About 50 Years Working As Joint Director (Agriculture), Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishak Kalyan Parishad, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agriculture Development And Former Welfare And Bio-Technology Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Excellency of Governor, State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raj Bhawan, Civil Line, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 02.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Devesh G. Kela, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.01.02 18:05:15 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.-2 to consider and decide pending appeal of the petitioner (Annexure P-2), within stipulated period. 10.2 Any other relief, which may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently working as Joint Director (Agriculture) and is posted at Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishak Kalyan Parishad, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). The respondent No.1, vide order dated 29.07.2022, imposed a penalty under Rule 10(4) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, (in short ‘Rules, 1966’) withholding two annual increments with non- cumulative effect. 4. It is submitted that the impugned punishment order was passed without issuance of any show-cause notice, without framing of charges, and without holding any departmental enquiry, in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and Rule 16 of the Rules, 1966. No charge-sheet was ever served upon the petitioner prior to passing the order of punishment. 3 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under Rule 24(b) of the Rules, 1966, before the appellate authority i.e. respondent No.2. The said appeal is pending for consideration for a considerable period and has not been decided till date, despite lapse of sufficient time. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner has confined his prayer in the present petition only to a limited extent, namely, seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the pending appeal of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a stipulated time. 7. Learned State counsel undertakes that the pending appeal of the petitioner shall be considered and decided within the stipulated time. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 9. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court has taken into account the factual backdrop of the case, the nature and scope of the grievance raised by the petitioner, and the undisputed position that a statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner is already pending before the competent appellate authority since 13.01.2023. The Court also notes that the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner in the present proceedings is confined to seeking an expeditious decision of the said appeal, rather than 4 adjudication on the merits of the controversy at this stage. Further, learned State counsel has fairly submitted that the pending statutory appeal shall be considered and decided by the appellate authority within a stipulated timeframe. 10. In view of the availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy already invoked by the petitioner, and the assurance extended on behalf of the State for its time-bound consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the present petition would not serve any useful purpose and the ends of justice would be adequately met by relegating the petitioner to pursue the pending statutory appeal. 11. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the pending appeal of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law and after affording due opportunity to all concerned, within a period of 30 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh