1 2026:CGHC:20211 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3529 of 2017 1 - Mitthulal Sahu S/o Late Sadhuram Sahu, Aged About 68 Years R/o House No. 355, Gali No. 2, New Colony, Gaya Nagar, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Cooperative Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, P. S. Rakhi And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, 880, Civil Lines, Head Office, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, 880, Civil Lines, Head Office, Raipur Chhattisgarh. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Manager Establishment , Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, 880, Civil Lines, Head Office, Raipur Chhattisgarh. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anmol Sharma, PL For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 01.04.2017 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to forthwith release the amount of retrial benefits, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of entitlement to its realization. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and -2- just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Mr. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time, the petitioner, who was working on the post of Assistant Account Officer at Kisan Rice Mill, Bhatapara under respondent No.4, was inflicted with penalty of forfeiture of retiral dues vide order dated 01.04.2017. He would further submit that the order was passed contrary to the prevailing Service Rules and opportunity of hearing was also not provided. He would pray to set aside the order dated 01.04.2017. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 would oppose the submissions. He would submit that the order passed by respondent No.4 is appealable according to the Service Rules before the Managing Director. He would contend that the amount of gratuity was released in favour of the petitioner to the Tune of Rs.473144/- on 04.02.2022. He would further contend that as there is efficacious alternative remedy, this petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that there is dispute between the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that in a departmental inquiry, penalty has been inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 01.04.2017 and said order is appealable according to the Service Rules, in my opinion, this petition is not maintainable as the High Court cannot exercise powers of the Appellate Authority particularly in a matter of departmental inquiry. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to prefer a duly constituted appeal 3 before the Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days and in turn, said authority is directed to decide it strictly in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha