1 - Narendra Kumar Sahu S/o Ramlal Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:44957 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2747 of 2023 1 - Narendra Kumar Sahu S/o Ramlal Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 5, School Para, Village Semhara, Post Kanshinghi, Tehsil Chhura, District Gariabandh Chhattsgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Under Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Geriabandh, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 4 - Upper Collector, Gariabandh, District Gariabandh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Joint Collector, Gariabandh, District Gariabandh Chhattisgarh. 6 - Deputy Collector, Gariabandh, District Gariabandh Chhattisgarh. 7 - Sub - Divisional Officer, Rajim, District Gariabandh Chhattisgarh. 2 8 - Tehsildar, Rajim, District Gariabandh Chhattisgarh. 9 - Collector, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 10 - Sub - Divisional Officer, Abhanpur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 11 - Tehsildar, Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 03/09/2025 Order on Board 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased quash the show cause notice dared 18.11.2022 (Annexure P-1) as the same has been issued in violation to the Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 and 7 to forward the Last Pay Certificate, Pass Book, Service Records and other concerned documents of the petitioner to 3 his new place of posting as per transfer Order dated 30.09.2022. 10.3) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to release the salary of the petitioner. 10.4) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 and 7 to comply with Order dated 30.09.2022 passed by respondent No. 2. 10.5) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the instant writ petition is being filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the arbitrary, whimsical and unjust actions as well as inactions on the part of respondent Nos. 3 to 8. It is submitted that although a transfer order dated 30.09.2023 was issued by respondent No. 2 transferring the petitioner to his new place of posting, he was not relieved from his previous posting despite making several representations requesting issuance of his relieving order. The said representations remained pending and undecided, as a result of which the petitioner was unable to assume charge at his new place of 4 posting. It is pertinent to mention that when the matter came to the notice of respondent No. 2, a letter dated 02.12.2022 was issued by him directing all the Collectors of the State to ensure that employees transferred to other districts or within the district are relieved and join their new place of posting within seven days. Surprisingly, despite the said circular, no order was issued with regard to relieving the petitioner, whereas by order dated 22.12.2022 another similarly situated Patwari was relieved in compliance with the directions of respondent No. 2. Further, when the petitioner marked his presence at his new place of posting in compliance with the order dated 30.09.2022, respondent No. 6, acting in an arbitrary manner, issued the impugned show cause notice (Annexure P-1) against him. Moreover, despite discharging his duties regularly, the petitioner has not been paid his monthly salary as his Last Pay Certificate (LPC), Pass Book and Service Records have not been forwarded by respondent Nos. 3 and 7 to his new place of posting in compliance with the transfer order dated 30.09.2022. In view of the issuance of the show cause notice, there also exists a likelihood of a departmental enquiry being initiated against the petitioner at any point of time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a show cause notice dated 18.11.2022 was issued to the petitioner proposing 5 initiation of departmental enquiry, to which the petitioner has already submitted a detailed reply within the stipulated time; however, despite the lapse of considerable period, no steps have been taken by the respondents to actually initiate or conduct any departmental enquiry against the petitioner, thereby causing unnecessary prejudice and hardship, and in these circumstances, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of the present writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merit, in as much as the issuance of a show cause notice does not, by itself, confer any enforceable right upon the petitioner to seek judicial intervention at this premature stage. It is further submitted that mere pendency of consideration upon the reply filed by the petitioner cannot be construed as inaction or arbitrary conduct on the part of the respondents, since the competent authority is well within its jurisdiction to evaluate the reply and thereafter take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. It is also contended that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any tangible prejudice or violation of statutory or constitutional rights arising from the alleged delay, and therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 6 material available on record. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and upon careful examination of the submissions made, this Court is of the considered view that the instant petition, at this stage, is premature and, therefore, does not warrant adjudication on merits. However, in the interest of justice and to safeguard the rights of the petitioner, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to raise and agitate the issues involved herein at an appropriate stage, as and when any exigency or cause of action arises in future.
Decision
7. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat