1 CGHC010023542021 2026:CGHC:35566 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 650 of 2021 Kaushal Patel S/o Samaru Ram Patel, Aged About 37 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Grade - Iii, Janpad Panchayat, Simga, R/o Village - Charauda, Post - Dharsiva, Police Station - Dharsiva, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector, District - Baloda Bazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, District - Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive officer, Janpad Panchayat, Simga, District - Baloda Bazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dharsiva, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Sultana Wahida, Village, Panchayat Dharsiva, Post - Dharsiva, District - Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. A. V. Shridhar, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer For Respondent Nos. No.4 & 5 : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the inquiry report dated 28.12.2019 (Annexure P/3) and subsequent orders passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division to terminate the services of the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities not to disturb the working of the petitioner as Assistant Grade-III, Janpad Panchayat, Simga without following due process of law. 10.4 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case may be given.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner posted on the post of Assistant Grade-III under the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, was subjected to the departmental enquiry on the basis of a preliminary enquiry conducted behind his back and the decision was taken according to the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Recruitment and General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1999 (for short, the Rules, 1999). It is argued that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him and the authority concerned had made up its mind to terminate his services. He would submit that the orders at Annexures P/1 to P/3 are bad in law. He would further contend that an interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner on 08.02.2021, which is still operating in favour of the petitioner. He would further contend that the Divisional Commissioner has no authority or competence to initiate a departmental enquiry or act as an Enquiry officer, as the disciplinary authority of Assistant Grade-III is respondent No. 4, i.e., the Chief Executive officer, Janpad Panchayat, in terms of the Rules, 1999. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s) would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that though the Divisional Commissioner is not the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, but a higher authority may issue articles of charge against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner may be challenged by filing a 3 revision before the State Government in accordance with Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 read with Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. 4. Heard. 5. It is true that the Divisional Commissioner is not the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. According to the applicable service rules, namely the Rules, 1999, the disciplinary authority in respect of the post of Assistant Grade-III is the Chief Executive officer, Janpad Panchayat. It is also evident from the documents that no regular enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him, and the decision to terminate his services would be violative of the principles of natural justice. However, it is also an admitted fact that orders and decisions taken by the Divisional Commissioner are subject to revision before the State Government under Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 read with Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. 6. Having considered the above-discussed facts and Rule(s), this petition is hereby disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to prefer a duly constituted revision before the State Government within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and in turn, the concerned authorities shall decide the said revision within a further period of 120 days from the date of filing of revision. 7. The authorities concerned are directed to afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other interested parties. 8. Till the revision preferred by the petitioner is decided, the interim relief granted earlier on 08.02.2021 shall continue to operate. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim