1 2026:CGHC:18749 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3285 of 2026 1 - Smt. Anita Thakur W/o Uttam Singh Thakur Aged About 44 Years Posted As Secretary, Gram Panchayat Rajur, Janpad Panchayat Tokapaal District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, Bastar , District- Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Jila Panchayat Bastar, Through Chief Executive Officer, District- Bastar Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4 - Janapd Panchayat Tikapaal, Through Chief Executive Officer District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Vivek Verma, Government Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 23/04 /2026 1. With the consent of parties, case is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- 2 “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 06.03.2026 (Annexure P/1) and further Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to discharge her duties as Secretary in Gram Panchayat Tokapaal, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon’ble Court.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while posting as Secretary, Gram Panchayat and posted at Village Panchayat, Rajur – 01, Janpad Panchayat Tokapaal, District – Bastar. She was suspended vide order dated 05.05.2025. The order of suspension and issuance of charge-memo was put to challenge in writ petition bearing WP (S) No. 1740/2026 and upon considering the grounds in the writ petition, interim order was passed on 13.02.2026 in favour of the petitioner. He contended that the respondent authorities during the force of interim order has passed the impugned order dated 06.03.2026 (Annexure P/1) giving warning to the petitioner and posting her in Gram Panchayat Bedaguda, Janpad Panchayat Tokapaal changing her posting again in the teeth of the order passed by this Court. 4. Further, he also submitted that when once, the order of suspension is stayed, there is no occasion for the respondent authorities to pass the impugned order mentioning that the order of suspension is revoked and further issuance of order of warning against the petitioner. He submitted that the order of warning is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner which cannot be done without following due process of law. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 would oppose the submission of the counsel for petitioner and would submit that the order of suspension has been revoked and the petitioner has been posted in Gram Panchayat Bedaguda after revocation of the order of suspension. 3 He however, do not dispute the submission of counsel for the petitioner that this order is passed during pendency of the earlier writ petition in which, interim order dated 13.02.2026 was granted in favour of the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. It is not in dispute that upon issuance of the order of suspension and the charge-memo to the petitioner, she approached this Court and filed writ petition bearing WP (S) No. 1740/2026. 8. Upon considering the ground in the writ petition, this Court has passed the following order:- “10.1 Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a widow lady and working on the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Rajur-01. She was ordered to take additional charge of Gram Panchayat, Badeparakot. Petitioner Immediately wrote letter to the concerned authority showing her inability to discharge duty of Secretary of two Gram Panchayats assigning reasons therein. Thereafter show-cause notice was issued to petitioner and subsequently vide order 05.12.2025, petitioner was suspended. Respondent No. 5 thereafter had issued charge memo to petitioner with a charge that petitioner has not complied with the order of taking additional charge of Gram Panchayat, Badeparakot. Suspension and the charge memo issued to petitioner is intentional, Respondents No. 3 & 4 considering the inability of petitioner to take additional charge of other Gram Panchayat could have issued another order directing other Panchayat Secretary(ies) to take additional charge of Gram Panchayat, Badeparakot, which was not done and enquiry proceeding has been initiated against petitioner. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for petitioner, purely as an interim measure, interim relief as prayed for is granted till next date of hearing.” 9. While the interim order dated 13.02.2026 passed in WP (S) No. 1740/2026 was in force, the Respondent No. 3 has passed the impugned order dated 06.03.2026 (Annexure P/1). If the order of suspension itself is stayed, there was no occasion for the respondent authorities to revoke 4 the order of suspension and post the petitioner in a different place i.e. Village Panchayt Bedaguda, Janpad Panchayat Tokapaal and further, that when the charge-memo itself is stayed, the respondent authorities would not have issued an order of warning against the petitioner. 10. For the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 06.03.2026 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable and accordingly, it is quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. Consequences to follow. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY