Shamim Khan, S/o. M.D. Murtuja Khand, aged about 36 years, R/o. Bhatgaon Bhatgaon, Colliery v. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District

Smt. Punam Gupta Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petition (S) No.804of2010 PETITIONERS Ajay Kumar Jaiswal & Others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus Writ Petition <S) No.1185 of 2010 PETITIONERS Ku. Nilam Minz & Others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus Writ Petition (S) No.1560 of2010 PETITIONERS Aabid Ali Ansari & Others (name ofpetitionerNo.lAshish KumarJaiswal deleted as per Court order dated 10-9-2013) Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petition (S} No. 1564 of 2010 PETITIONER Surbhi Mishra Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petition (S) No. 1599 of 2010 PETITJONERS Poonam Tirkey & Others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus 2- v Writ Petition (S) No.2173 of 2010 PETITIONER Smt. Anita Singh Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petition (S) No.3741 of 2010 PETITIONERS Ramesh Kumar Paikra & Another RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus WritPetjtion.(S} No.1624 of2012 PETITIONER Smt. Punita Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petition (S) No.1626 of 2012 PETITIONER Swaminath Ram Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petition (S) No. 1627 of 2012 PETITIONER Shamim Khan Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others And Wrjt Petjtion IS) No.6327 of 2011 PETITIONERS Mukta Bek & Others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra •^ ^'•~~sW 3 0)<p Present:- Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Shri Manoj Paranjape, Shri Atanu Ghosh, ShriA.K. Chandra & Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocates for the respective petitioners. Shri Rakesh Jha, Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Shri R.S. Baghel & Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocates for the respective respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 25th day of October, 2013) . Heard learned counsel forthe parties.

1. At the very outset, Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing

3. for the petitioners in WP (S) No.2173 of 2010, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner No.3 Ku. Swati Gupta does not wish to prosecute the petition and wants to withdraw the same. Accordingly, WP (S) No.2173 of 2010, in respect of petitioner No.3/Ku. Swati Gupta, is dismissed as withdrawn. In all the writ petitions challenge is to the legality and validity of the orders dated 5-2-2010 & 26-3-2012 passed by the Collector, Sarguja, whereby the Collector has directed the Chief Executive Officers of Janpad Panchayat to suspend the services of the petitioners who are working as Shiksha Karmi Grade - III and after seeking approval of Janpad Panchayat charge sheet be issued and further action be teken. By a separate order passed on the same day, the Collector has also directed the concerned Chief Executive Officers to lodge FIR against the Shiksha Karmis under the different provisions of the Indian Penal Code for obtaining appoinfment on fhe basis offorged certificates.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that Collector has no jurisdiction or authority under Sections 85 & 86 of the "the Adhiniyam, Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short lil^!!: ^ 1993") to issue such a direction for todging of FtR or for constituting enquiry. Learned counsel would submit the language of impugned order is suggestive of pre-determined action, therefore, the concerned Janpad Panchayat shall terminate the services of petitioners because the Collector has already recorded a finding that the petitioners have committed fraud. Thus, according to the tearned counsel for the petitioners, the decision finding them guiity, has already been taken and thereafter, an enquiry has been ordered, which is perse illegal and arbitrary. Per contra, leamed counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing fpr the different Janpad Panchayats would argue that the Collector is empowered under Sections 85 & 86 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 to pass such order and the lauv in this regard issettied. Learned counsel would further submit that in a preliminary enquiry conducted by a team of three Sub Divisional OfFicers the aliegation of using forged certificates has been found proved, therefore, it is not a case where the Collector has acted on his whims and fancies or that the impugned action is without any basis.

6. On a perusal of the enquiry report dated 23-9-2009 (Annexure - P/2 of -w WP (S) No.804 of 2010), it would appear that the concerned Shiksha Karmis were given opportunity of hearing by the enquiry committee and on the basis of statement made and affidavits sworn by the petitioners the enquiry team concluded that forged certificates have been submitted. However, at the same time, it is important to keep in mind that-the petitioners are alleging that at the time when the enquiry was conducted in the office of the Collector, Sarguja, theywere pressurized to sub'mit affidavit and make statement that they have committed fraud. ~^ ^ Since under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India it is provided that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself, keeping the said principle in-mind, although it may not be applicable in the present case because at the stage of enquiry by the team of Revenue Officers no offence was registered against them, yet the decision to lodge FIR oh the basis of their own statement and thereafter, to proceed for holding an enquiry under the relevant circulars may not be the correct procedure.

7. It has been informed that pursuant to interim order dated 10-3-2010, pass'ed in WP (S) No.804 of 2010, whereby the said part of the order directing lodging' of FIR has been suspended by this Court, petitioners are still continuing in sen/ice and FIR has nof been lodged. Thus, instead of keeping these writ petitions pending and considering the nature of cQntroversy, the same are disposed of with the following directions: > The concerned Janpad Panchayat shali proceed to conduct enquiry as directed by the Collector by serving a charge sheet to each of the Shiksha Karmi mentioned in the order of the Collector. > The Chief Executive Officer shall complete the enquiry after recording specific finding with respect to each of the Shiksha Karmi about their service. > Each of the Shiksha Karmi shall be granted full and effective opportunity pf hearing before concluding the enquiry. > On completion of enquiry and based upon its finding the concemed Chief Executive OfRcer shatl proceed to take "%, ^ .action in accordance with direction issued by the Collector within a period of six months from today. While recording finding one way or other the concerned Chief Executive Officer may consider the enquiry report, but the said report cannot form sole basis of finding and the finding recorded on the conclusion of enquiry shall be based on the entire material available before the enquiry officer, which shall be submitted by each of the Shiksha Karmi and any other evidence brought before the enquiry. During the enquiry proceeding, the interim order passed by this Court shall remain in force for a period of six months.

8. There shall be no order as to costs. Gowri Sd"-_^^ A^ ss^ ^tasbanv^ASe .~-.--.:Si^fi".

Smt. Punam Gupta Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petition (S) No.804of2010 PETITIONERS Ajay Kumar Jaiswal & Others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus Writ Petition <S) No.1185 of 2010 PETITIONERS Ku. Nilam Minz & Others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus Writ Petition (S) No.1560 of2010 PETITIONERS Aabid Ali Ansari & Others (name ofpetitionerNo.lAshish KumarJaiswal deleted as per Court order dated 10-9-2013) Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petition (S} No. 1564 of 2010 PETITIONER Surbhi Mishra Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petition (S) No. 1599 of 2010 PETITJONERS Poonam Tirkey & Others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus 2- v Writ Petition (S) No.2173 of 2010 PETITIONER Smt. Anita Singh Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petition (S) No.3741 of 2010 PETITIONERS Ramesh Kumar Paikra & Another RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus WritPetjtion.(S} No.1624 of2012 PETITIONER Smt. Punita Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petition (S) No.1626 of 2012 PETITIONER Swaminath Ram Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petition (S) No. 1627 of 2012 PETITIONER Shamim Khan Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others And Wrjt Petjtion IS) No.6327 of 2011 PETITIONERS Mukta Bek & Others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra •^ ^'•~~sW 3 0)<p Present:- Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Shri Manoj Paranjape, Shri Atanu Ghosh, ShriA.K. Chandra & Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocates for the respective petitioners. Shri Rakesh Jha, Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Shri R.S. Baghel & Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocates for the respective respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 25th day of October, 2013) . Heard learned counsel forthe parties.

1. At the very outset, Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing

3. for the petitioners in WP (S) No.2173 of 2010, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner No.3 Ku. Swati Gupta does not wish to prosecute the petition and wants to withdraw the same. Accordingly, WP (S) No.2173 of 2010, in respect of petitioner No.3/Ku. Swati Gupta, is dismissed as withdrawn. In all the writ petitions challenge is to the legality and validity of the orders dated 5-2-2010 & 26-3-2012 passed by the Collector, Sarguja, whereby the Collector has directed the Chief Executive Officers of Janpad Panchayat to suspend the services of the petitioners who are working as Shiksha Karmi Grade - III and after seeking approval of Janpad Panchayat charge sheet be issued and further action be teken. By a separate order passed on the same day, the Collector has also directed the concerned Chief Executive Officers to lodge FIR against the Shiksha Karmis under the different provisions of the Indian Penal Code for obtaining appoinfment on fhe basis offorged certificates.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that Collector has no jurisdiction or authority under Sections 85 & 86 of the "the Adhiniyam, Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short lil^!!: ^ 1993") to issue such a direction for todging of FtR or for constituting enquiry. Learned counsel would submit the language of impugned order is suggestive of pre-determined action, therefore, the concerned Janpad Panchayat shall terminate the services of petitioners because the Collector has already recorded a finding that the petitioners have committed fraud. Thus, according to the tearned counsel for the petitioners, the decision finding them guiity, has already been taken and thereafter, an enquiry has been ordered, which is perse illegal and arbitrary. Per contra, leamed counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing fpr the different Janpad Panchayats would argue that the Collector is empowered under Sections 85 & 86 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 to pass such order and the lauv in this regard issettied. Learned counsel would further submit that in a preliminary enquiry conducted by a team of three Sub Divisional OfFicers the aliegation of using forged certificates has been found proved, therefore, it is not a case where the Collector has acted on his whims and fancies or that the impugned action is without any basis.

6. On a perusal of the enquiry report dated 23-9-2009 (Annexure - P/2 of -w WP (S) No.804 of 2010), it would appear that the concerned Shiksha Karmis were given opportunity of hearing by the enquiry committee and on the basis of statement made and affidavits sworn by the petitioners the enquiry team concluded that forged certificates have been submitted. However, at the same time, it is important to keep in mind that-the petitioners are alleging that at the time when the enquiry was conducted in the office of the Collector, Sarguja, theywere pressurized to sub'mit affidavit and make statement that they have committed fraud. ~^ ^ Since under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India it is provided that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself, keeping the said principle in-mind, although it may not be applicable in the present case because at the stage of enquiry by the team of Revenue Officers no offence was registered against them, yet the decision to lodge FIR oh the basis of their own statement and thereafter, to proceed for holding an enquiry under the relevant circulars may not be the correct procedure.

7. It has been informed that pursuant to interim order dated 10-3-2010, pass'ed in WP (S) No.804 of 2010, whereby the said part of the order directing lodging' of FIR has been suspended by this Court, petitioners are still continuing in sen/ice and FIR has nof been lodged. Thus, instead of keeping these writ petitions pending and considering the nature of cQntroversy, the same are disposed of with the following directions: > The concerned Janpad Panchayat shali proceed to conduct enquiry as directed by the Collector by serving a charge sheet to each of the Shiksha Karmi mentioned in the order of the Collector. > The Chief Executive Officer shall complete the enquiry after recording specific finding with respect to each of the Shiksha Karmi about their service. > Each of the Shiksha Karmi shall be granted full and effective opportunity pf hearing before concluding the enquiry. > On completion of enquiry and based upon its finding the concemed Chief Executive OfRcer shatl proceed to take "%, ^ .action in accordance with direction issued by the Collector within a period of six months from today. While recording finding one way or other the concerned Chief Executive Officer may consider the enquiry report, but the said report cannot form sole basis of finding and the finding recorded on the conclusion of enquiry shall be based on the entire material available before the enquiry officer, which shall be submitted by each of the Shiksha Karmi and any other evidence brought before the enquiry. During the enquiry proceeding, the interim order passed by this Court shall remain in force for a period of six months.

8. There shall be no order as to costs. Gowri Sd"-_^^ A^ ss^ ^tasbanv^ASe .~-.--.:Si^fi".