1 CGHC010246622026 2026:CGHC:39322 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4942 of 2026 Nitesh Gavel S/o Govind Ram Gavel Aged About 38 Years Occupation- Service Presently Posted And Working As Secretary Gram Panchayat Nawapara Khurd Tahsil- Sakti District- Sakti (C.G.) R/o Near Beriwali Mandir Baradwar Road Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Panchayat Vikas Bhawan Ground Floor, Sector-19 North Block Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Sakti District- Sakti (C.G.) 4 - Zila Panchayat Sakti Through Its Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) 5 - Janpad Panchayat Sakti Through Its Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Sakti District- Sakti (C.G.) 6 - Krishna Sidar Secretary Gram Panchayat Dondaki Tahsil- Sakti District- Sakti (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Resp No. 1 to 3 : Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, PL For Resp No.4 : Mr. Vedant Shadange, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.09.09 10:25:47 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 08.09.2026 1. By the present petition, the petitioner has called in question the order of transfer dated 03.06.2026 (Annexure-P/1), whereby he has been transferred from Gram Panchayat Nawapara Khurd to Gram Panchayat Jaajang, Tehsil Shakti, District Shakti. The said order of transfer has been stated to have been passed on the basis of the recommendation made by the Janpad Panchayat, Shakti. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recommendation made by the Janpad Panchayat reflects that the transfer of the petitioner was recommended pursuant to the complaint made by a villager and the Sarpanch, which was referred by the Nayab Tehsildar to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Shakti, vide communication dated 20.05.2026 (Annexure-P/7). It is contended that the Circular dated 29.08.2008 (Annexure-P/4) specifically provides that where a Panchayat Secretary is sought to be transferred on the basis of a complaint, necessary inquiry is required to be conducted before taking such action. Learned counsel submits that, in the present case, the complaint was forwarded by the Nayab Tehsildar to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, only on 20.05.2026, whereas on the very next day, i.e. 21.05.2026, the Janpad Panchayat proceeded to recommend the transfer of the petitioner without conducting any inquiry into the said complaint. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Janpad Panchayat submits that several complaints had earlier been made against the petitioner and an 3 inquiry had also been conducted pursuant thereto. It is submitted that the recommendation for transfer was made on the basis of the material available against the petitioner and, therefore, no illegality can be said to have been committed either in the recommendation made by the Janpad Panchayat or in the consequential order of transfer. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From a perusal of the communication dated 20.05.2026 issued by the Nayab Tehsildar and addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Shakti, contained in Annexure-P/7, it appears that the complaint in question was forwarded to the Chief Executive Officer on 20.05.2026. The record further reveals that on the very next day, i.e. 21.05.2026, the Janpad Panchayat proceeded to recommend the transfer of the petitioner without any inquiry into the complaint referred by the Nayab Tehsildar. 6. The Circular dated 29.08.2008 (Annexure-P/4), as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, prescribes the requirement of conducting necessary inquiry where a Panchayat Secretary is sought to be transferred on the basis of a complaint. In the facts of the present case, the material placed on record does not indicate that any such inquiry was conducted into the complaint which formed the basis of the recommendation dated 21.05.2026. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the Janpad Panchayat that certain complaints had earlier been made against the petitioner and an inquiry had also been conducted cannot, by itself, cure the aforesaid procedural infirmity, particularly when the impugned recommendation appears to have been made 4 on the basis of the complaint referred by the Nayab Tehsildar on 20.05.2026 and no inquiry into the said complaint is shown to have been conducted before making the recommendation on 21.05.2026. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the procedure prescribed under the Circular dated 29.08.2008 has not been followed before recommending the transfer of the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order of transfer, being founded upon a recommendation made without following the prescribed procedure, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside, insofar as it relates to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be permitted to continue at his present place of posting. 9. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with the Circular dated 29.08.2008 and the applicable rules, if so advised, either on the basis of the complaint in question or on the ground of administrative exigency, in accordance with law. 10. The petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul