1 CGHC010262852026 2026:CGHC:30440 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3715 of 2026 1 - Kamlesh Usare S/o- Shri Santram Usare, Aged About 45 Years Occupation- Panchayat Secretary, R/o- Village And Post Kahgaon, Thana And Tahsil Manpur, District- Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development , Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Womens Commission, Through Its Chairperson, Camp Office, Prerna Sabha Kaksh, Balgrih Parisar, 5 Building, Mahila Bal Vikas Karyalaya, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) 3 - Mandakini Usare W/o- Kamlesh Usare, R/o- Village And Post Kahgaon, Thana And Tehsil Manpur, District- Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 3725 of 2026 1 - Ranju Mandavi D/o- Late Shri Jagmohan Singh Mandavi, Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Presently Posted At Iragaon, R/o- Village Khasfadki, Tahsil Manpur, District- Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Womens Commission, Through Its Chairperson, Camp Office, Prerna Sabha Kaksh, Balgrih Parisar, 5 Building, Mahila Bal Vikas Karyalaya, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Mandakini Usare, W/o- Kamlesh Usare, R/o- Village And Post Kahgaon , Thana And Tehsil Manpur, District- Mohla -Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 4 - Deputy Director Of Agriculture, District- Mohla -Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For State :- Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. For Respondent-C.G. Rajya Mahila Ayog:- Mr. S.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 17.07.2026 1. Since common issue is involved in both the petitions, they are being decided by this common order. 3 2. Since the reliefs sought in both the writ petitions are similar and identical, the reliefs prayed for in WPC No. 3715 of 2026 are taken for the purpose of reference and are reproduced hereunder:- “I. That, the Hon'ble Court may quash/set- aside the order/noting dated 18.06.2026 whereby Respondent No.2 recommended termination of the services of the Petitioner to the competent disciplinary authority. Π. That, the Hon'ble Court may quash/set- aside the order/noting dated 09.02.2026 passed by Respondent No.2 Chhattisgarh State Women's Commission, whereby the complaint preferred by Respondent No.3 was held to be maintainable under Regulation 8(1) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog (Prakriya) Viniyam, 1998 and directed to be processed further. III. That, the Hon'ble Court may issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of Prohibition, restraining Respondent No.2 from taking any further steps pursuant to the recommendation dated 18.06.2026 or from making any further recommendation concerning the Petitioner's service on the basis of the impugned complaint. IV. Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in 4 the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Aayog has passed the impugned order beyond the jurisdiction and powers vested upon it under the relevant provisions of law. He submits that, on the basis of a complaint received by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Aayog, the Commission has passed an order directing the respondent authorities to make a recommendation for removal of the petitioner from service. It is submitted that such direction has been issued to the District Collector, Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki as well as the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is ex facie illegal and contrary to law, as the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Aayog has exceeded its jurisdiction and has virtually usurped the powers vested with the competent disciplinary authority. He submits that, without initiation of any departmental enquiry, without issuance of any notice, charge-sheet or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, a recommendation for removal from service has been made, which is wholly impermissible in law. Learned counsel also submits that the concerned departmental authorities are the only competent authorities to take appropriate action against the petitioner in 5 accordance with the applicable service rules, after following due procedure prescribed under law. The impugned order, therefore, amounts to interference with the statutory powers of the competent authorities and deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Aayog submits that the intention of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Aayog was only to make a recommendation for initiation of appropriate departmental proceedings against the petitioner and to enable the competent authority to examine the matter and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. He submits that the order passed by the Commission is in the nature of a recommendation and is not a final direction for removal of the petitioner from service. It is further submitted that the impugned order does not amount to usurpation of the powers of the competent disciplinary authority, as the final decision regarding any action against the petitioner is to be taken by the concerned departmental authorities in accordance with the applicable service rules and after following due procedure prescribed under law. 5. Learned State counsel also submits that the order passed by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Aayog is only recommendatory in nature and cannot be construed as a final order directing removal of the petitioner from service. 6 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records of the case. On perusal of the recommendation made by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Aayog, it appears that the Commission has recommended removal of the petitioner from service and the said recommendation has been forwarded to the concerned Collector as well as the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat. 7. In Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and another reported in (2010) 8 SCC 633, the following was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 9, 10, 13 & 26 : “9. It would be seen from Section 10 of the 1993 Act that the State Commission has been authorised to take up studies in respect of economic, educational and health situation of the women of the State and also the working conditions of women in the factories, establishments, construction sites and make its recommendations to the State Government. The State Commission is empowered to compile information in respect of the offences against women and to coordinate with the State Cell and District Cells for atrocities against women. Further, the State Commission is competent to receive complaints in respect of the matters specified in Section 10(1)(d) and take up the grievances raised in the complaint(s) with the authorities 7 concerned for appropriate remedial measures. The State Commission is also given the role of assisting, training and orienting the non-governmental organisations in the State in legal counselling of poor women and enabling such women to get legal aid. Under clause (f) of Section 10(1), the State Commission is authorised to inspect or cause to be inspected, a jail, remand home, women's institution or other place of custody where women are kept as prisoners or otherwise and take up with the authorities concerned these matters for remedial action. 10. In other words, the State Commission is broadly assigned to take up studies on issues of economic, educational and health care that may help in overall development of the women of the State; gather statistics concerning offences against women; probe into the complaints relating to atrocities on women, deprivation of women of their rights in respect of minimum wages, basic health, maternity rights, etc. and upon ascertainment of facts take up the matter with the authorities concerned for remedial measures; help women in distress as a friend, philosopher and guide in enforcement of their legal rights. However, no power or authority has been given to the State Commission to adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties. 13. It is clear to us that the legislature has not gone so far as to give jurisdiction to the State Commission to make an order such as the one that has been made. From 8 whatever angle we may examine the validity of the directions given by the State Commission in its order dated 11-5-2009, it appears to us that the said order was outside the jurisdiction, power or competence of the State Commission. It was an order which the State Commission had no competence to make and, therefore, a void order. The High Court instead of correcting that order went a step further and directed that DNA test of the child as well as the appellant shall be conducted. 26. We clarify that our order shall not preclude Respondent 2 from claiming maintenance or any other order of financial support against the appellant in appropriate proceedings from the court of competent jurisdiction or in the petition filed by the appellant before the District Judge, Khurda, Bhubaneshwar. Obviously the appellant shall be at liberty to contest the claim of Respondent 2 on all available grounds and the court concerned shall consider and determine such claim in accordance with law on its own merits. The parties shall bear their own costs.” 8. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, and considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, which have remained unrebutted in the absence of any documentary or oral evidence to the contrary, coupled with the non-appearance of respondent No. 3, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned recommendation/order 9 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Aayog cannot be sustained. The Ayog is vested only with recommendatory powers and does not possess the jurisdiction to issue directions having the effect of imposing civil consequences or to direct the removal of an employee from service. Any action affecting the service of the petitioner can be taken only by the competent disciplinary authority in accordance with the applicable service rules and after following the procedure prescribed under law. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the recommendation issued by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Aayog, which virtually directs the removal of the petitioner from service, is beyond the jurisdiction and powers vested in the Ayog. The authority competent to initiate or take any action against the petitioner in relation to his service is required to proceed strictly in accordance with the applicable service rules and after following the procedure prescribed under law. 10.Consequently, the impugned recommendation/order passed by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Aayog cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed and set aside. 11.However, liberty is reserved in favour of the competent respondent authorities to consider the complaint made against the petitioner and to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, if so advised, after following the due procedure prescribed under the applicable service rules and affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing. 10 12.With the aforesaid observation and liberty, the writ petitions stand disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha