1 2026:CGHC:17620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3590 of 2023 Vibhishan Verma S/o Shri Dhaniram Verma, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Umariya, Post Bitkuli, P.S. Bilha District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Director, Directorate Of Agriculture, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Agricultural Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Raipur Division, Ravigram Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Assistant Agricultural Engineer, Agricultural Engineering District Kabirdham, Ghothiya Road Kawardha Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avadhesh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Akansha Verma, Panel Lawyer SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.04.21 11:33:19 +0530 2 S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned termination order dated 22.6.2022 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authority to pay subsistence allowances during suspension including back subsistence allowances which is not paid after impugned termination order dt. 22.6.2022 to petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice as per facts and circumstances of the case including cost may also be allowed. 2. Concisely stated, the facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Welder by Respondent No.2 on 11.3.2013. Thereafter, the appointing authority posted the petitioner in the office of Respondent No.3. In the year 2014, while in service, the petitioner entered into marriage. After about six months of marriage, on 13.12.2014, the petitioner’s wife immolated herself. She succumbed to her injuries during treatment in a hospital on 20.12.2014. A belated FIR was registered against the petitioner 3 on 11.1.2015. After the trial in the subject Criminal Case, the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court under Section 304-B of the IPC and sentenced to undergog RI for 7 years and under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/-. However, while allowing IA No.1/2016 filed in Criminal Appeal No.689/2016, the sentence imposed upon the appellant was suspended by this Court and the petitioner was granted bail vide order dated 3.3.2017. Subsequent to his release from jail, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities and submitted the order dated 3.3.2017 passed by this Court. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice dated 6.12.2017. The petitioner submitted reply to the said notice before respondent No.2. However, without conducting a proper departmental enquiry and without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of producing defence evidence, respondent No.2 removed the petitioner from service vide the impugned termination order dated 22.6.2022. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Respondent No.1, which remains pending and undecided till date. Notably, on account of the said criminal case, the petitioner was previously placed under suspension with the benefit of subsistence allowance vide order dated 26.4.2016. After his release from jail, the petitioner joined the office of Respondent No.2. During the period of suspension, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting reinstatement in service in light of the Circular dated 2.7.2012 issued by the Government of 4 Chhattisgarh. However, instead of considering the petitioner’s case as per the said Circular, Respondent No.2 terminated the petitioner from service vide the impugned order. Hence, this Petition. 3. Mr. Avadhesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has already been convicted in a criminal case, his dismissal from service on the same grounds constitutes Double Jeopardy. He further submits that neither any departmental enquiry has been initiated nor were the principles of natural justice followed before passing the impugned termination order. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be set-aside. 4. Per contra, Ms. Akansha Verma, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of his conviction in a criminal case. She submits that such dismissal, being based on judicial conviction, is in accordance with law and the relevant Service Rules. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 6. Admittedly, Rule 19(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1996, prescribes that a delinquent employee may be removed from service upon a criminal conviction. Unless and until, the conviction is set-aside by a competent Court, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this stage, particularly while the criminal appeal is pending for final adjudication. 5 7. For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to move an appropriate petition/representation before the concerned Court/Authority in the event the petitioner is acquitted of the charges in the pending criminal appeal. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay