1 2026:CGHC:13276 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6467 of 2022  Khuman Prasad Rajwade S/o Suryabhan Rajwade Aged About 51 Years Occupation - Assistant Teacher, Primary School - Dhourabhatha, Janpad Panchayat - Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantrayala Atal Ngar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Secretary Panchayat Department Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. District Education Officer Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat - Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat - Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Ms. Seema Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19.03 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may be kindly allow the Petition and quash the impugned order dated 11.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no. 5, in the interest of justice. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.20 17:44:36 +0530 2 10.2 Any other relief as may be granted in favour of petitioner and against respondents.” 2. Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 07.02.2011. He would further submit that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.06.2019 on account of certain alleged misconducts. He submits that thereafter petitioner preferred WPS No. 562 of 2021 and vide order dated 12.02.2021 matter was disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for revocation of suspension, and thereafter, suspension order was revoked. He further submits that respondent No. 5 inflicted major penalty and terminated the services of the petitioner. He would contend that the order impugned was passed without approval from the General Administrative Standing Committee of Janpad Panchayat, Korba. It is argued by Mr. Tripathi that the order of termination was passed contrary to provisions of Rule 10 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment Condition of Service) Rule, 2007. He would submit that the order Annexure P/1 dated 11.07.2022 is bad in law and same may be set- aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and on 02.07.2019 charge-sheet was issued and reply was sought for. Ms. Seema Mishra would submit that Principal of the Government Higher Secondary School, Kudmura was appointed as Enquiry officer and Assistant Block Education Officer, Korba was appointed as Presenting officer. She would contend that the petitioner in order to secure appointment in the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III submitted a forged 3 certificate of D.Ed. marksheet, and therefore, he was removed from services after following due process of law. She submits that the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy to challenge that order before the Collector under Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995. She would submit that instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 07.02.2011. It is alleged that the petitioner in order to secure appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III submitted a forged certificate of D.Ed.. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat has passed an order of termination on 11.07.2022(Annexure P/1). As there is efficacious alternative remedy available in favour of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the Collector according to the provisions of Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995, in my opinion, this petition is not maintainable, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant