Afr High Court · 2025
Case Details
1 PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.09 18:46:14 +0530 2025:CGHC:21785 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 238 of 2017 Reserved on 05/05/2025 Pronounced on 09/05/2025 Bhupendra Kumar Dhankar, S/o Shri Manharan Lal Dhankar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Gourbhat, Tahsil Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner, Raipur, Division Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director, Panchayat Department, Directorate, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Collector, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The District Education Officer, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Block Education Officer, Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner For State/Respondents No.1 to 4, 6 and 7 For Respondent No.5
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate : Mr. Ratan Pusty, G.A. appears along with Mr. Ruhul Ameen, P.L. Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Ashish Shukla, Advocate 2 Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal CAV ORDER 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 13/12/2016 (Annexure P/12) passed by Upper Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in Appeal Case No.20/A-89/2016-17, whereby, the learned Commissioner while affirming the order dated 17/05/2016 (Annexure P/10) passed by Upper Collector, Raipur in Appeal Case No.08-A/89(A)(15)/2015-16 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and, consequently his services have been terminated. 2. According to the averments made in the petition, it appears that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi, Grade-III by the respondent No.5- Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur on 21/06/2005 (Annexure P/2) under certain terms and conditions as stipulated therein. His appointment was made in accordance with the provisions prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 1997”) and, accordingly, he has been posted at Government Primary School, Semra. He made his joining for the said post on 27/06/2005 and was regularized subsequently, vide order dated 26/12/2007 (Annexure P/3) after completion of the probation period of 02 years. It appears further that at the time of his appointment, the petitioner has submitted 3 his temporary caste certificate dated 22/09/2004 (Annexure R/1) issued by the Tahsildar, Arang. It appears further that in pursuance to the direction issued by the Zila Panchayat vide its letter dated 03/03/2014, the petitioner’s services have been terminated by the respondent No.5-Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur vide order dated 07/07/2014 (Annexure P/1). The said order was reversed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) & Prescribed Authority, Arang, vide its order dated 06/06/2015 (Annexure P/7) passed in Appeal Case No.87-B/121/2013-14, in appeal preferred by the petitioner. It appears further that after the quashment of his termination order, the petitioner has made an application for his joining, but the Respondent No.5-Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur has refused to take his joining vide his order dated 28/08/2015 (Annexure P/8), observing, inter alia, that under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Adhiniyam, 1993”), the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) was not the competent authority to hear the said appeal and, therefore, he is not entitled to be reinstated. 3. It appears further that the petitioner has, thereafter, questioned his alleged termination order, dated 07/07/2014 (Annexure P/1) while preferring an appeal before the Upper Collector, Raipur as per the provisions prescribed under the Adhiniyam, 1993, but was found to be dismissed vide order dated 17/05/2016 (Annexure P/10) in Appeal Case No.08-A/89(A)(15)/2015-16 4 holding, inter alia, that despite providing sufficient opportunity, the petitioner has failed to produce the permanent caste certificate and, in consequence, termination of his services made by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur was affirmed and, the appeal preferred there against was dismissed by the Upper Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur vide its order impugned dated 13/12/2016 (Annexure P/12) in Appeal Case No.20/A-89/2016-17 and, being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.5-Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur has never demanded the permanent caste certificate from the petitioner, nor has issued any 'Show Cause Notice' before passing the alleged termination order dated 07/07/2014 (Annexure P/1) and, therefore, the alleged termination orders passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, are bad in law. While referring to the rule 9 of the Rules, 1997, it is contended further that since, the petitioner was the regular employee, therefore, for awarding the major punishment, the General Administration Standing Committee of the Janpad Panchayat shall be the disciplinary authority and, the order impugned passed by the respondent No.5-Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur would, therefore, be without jurisdiction to terminate him as such. It is, therefore, contended by him that the order impugned terminating the 5 services of the petitioner by the authority having no jurisdiction deserves to be quashed. 5. In reply, it is stated by the respondents/State, as well as, the respondent No.5- Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur that since, the petitioner has failed to produce the permanent caste certificate despite providing sufficient opportunity, therefore, it cannot be said that the order impugned terminating his services was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contested further on the ground that a complaint was received by the Zila Panchayat, Raipur that the petitioner based upon the forged caste certificate has obtained the alleged appointment order and, a notice dated 01/02/2014 (Annexure R/2) was, therefore, issued to him and as per the instruction of the Zila Panchayat, issued on 07/02/2014, the validity of the temporary caste certificate of the petitioner was got verified from the Block Development Education Officer, Abhanpur, who vide its report dated 20/02/2014 (Annexure R/3) found the same to be expired by the time when the alleged appointment order was issued to him. It is contended further that the Zila Panchayat, Raipur by affirming the said report has directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur, vide its letter dated 03/03/2014 to take an appropriate action and, accordingly, the petitioner’s services has been terminated vide order dated 07/07/2014 (Annexure P/1) and, was affirmed further by the Upper Collector, Raipur and Upper Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur vide its orders dated 6 17/05/2016 (Annexure P/10) and 13/12/2016 (Annexure P/12), respectively. It is, therefore, contended by the counsel appearing for the respondents that after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing, the services of the petitioner has been terminated and, therefore, the petition as framed is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire papers annexed with this petition carefully. 7. What is reflected from a bare perusal of the averments made by the parties that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi, Grade III vide order dated 21/06/2005 (Annexure P/2) under certain terms and conditions as stipulated therein by the respondent No.5- Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur and, was regularized subsequently, vide order dated 26/12/2007 (Annexure P/3) upon completion of the probation period of 02 years. 8. Condition No.11 mentioned in his appointment order (Annexure P/2) is relevant for the purpose, which reads as under :- " नि(cid:2)यु(cid:4)क्त अभ्युቕኌ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:12) के(cid:14) ्ቚमा(cid:17)ण पኘ᭖(cid:12) के(cid:21) ाም(cid:17)(cid:23)च ्ቚ(cid:17)वधा(cid:17)नि(cid:2)के रूप से(cid:14) नि(cid:2)यु(cid:4)ሹኌक्त के(cid:14) सेमायु के(cid:21) गयु(cid:31) है!| युदि# बा(cid:17)# भी(cid:31) ाም(cid:17)नित, अ&केसे’च(cid:31), नि(cid:2)व(cid:17)से, अ(cid:2)(cid:4)भीव आदि# मा) के*ई निवसे&गनित अ(cid:10)व(cid:17) झू’ठे(cid:14) ्ቚमा(cid:17)ण पኘ᭖(cid:12) के(cid:14) तथ्यु ्ቚके(cid:17)श मा) ला(cid:17)यु(cid:14) ाም(cid:17)त) है! त* नि(cid:2)यु(cid:4)क्त शिशቌኋ(cid:17) केमा3 के(cid:21) नि(cid:2)यु(cid:4)ሹኌक्त नि(cid:2)रस्त केर(cid:2)(cid:14) पर निवच(cid:17)र निकेयु(cid:17) ाም(cid:17)व(cid:14)ग(cid:17), त(cid:10)(cid:17) निवच(cid:17)र*पर(cid:17)न्त निबा(cid:2)(cid:17) प’व7 से’च(cid:2)(cid:17) के(cid:14) से(cid:14)व(cid:17) सेमा(cid:17)प्त केर #9 ाም(cid:17)व(cid:14)ग(cid:31) |” 7 9. According to the aforesaid condition, the certificates of the candidates have been verified provisionally at the time of issuance of appointment order and, if any of the certificate is found forged or any irregularity is found subsequently, then the cancellation of the appointment will be considered and upon due consideration, appointment would be cancelled without issuing prior 'Show Cause Notice'. 10. In the instant matter, the alleged appointment order dated 21/06/2005 (Annexure P/2) was issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur, in accordance with the provisions prescribed under the Rules, 1997 framed under the Adhiniyam, 1993 upon due verification of the certificates, including the temporary caste certificate submitted by the petitioner, who has joined his services, accordingly on 27/06/2005 (Annexure P/4) in Government Primary School at Semra and was regularized subsequently, after completion of the probation period of 02 years vide order dated 26/12/2007 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner was, thus, performing his duties continuously since the date of his appointment order, but was found to be terminated by the respondent No.5-Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur, vide order dated 07/07/2014 (Annexure P/1) in pursuance to the directions issued by the Zila Panchayat, Raipur vide its letter dated 03/03/2014 as the validity of the temporary caste certificate, based upon the inquiry report submitted by the Block Development Education Officer, has expired at the time of his appointment. 11. It is to be seen at this juncture that the petitioner, who was 8 regularized vide order dated 26/12/2007 (Annexure P/3) has completed his services for the period of more than 09 years after his regularization by the time when he was terminated vide order dated 07/07/2014 (Annexure P/1) by the respondent No.5-Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur. A bare perusal of the said termination order (Annexure P/1) would show that it was passed in pursuance to the instructions issued by the Zila Panchayat, Raipur vide its letter dated 03/03/2014. It appears from a 'Show Cause Notice' dated 01/02/2014 (Annexure R/2) issued by the respondent No.5, placed on record that it was issued to the petitioner directing him to appear on 05/02/2014 along with his appointment order and with the relevant certificates, including the caste certificate, but, a bare perusal of it, would, however, show that though, it appears to have been issued to the petitioner, but neither the endorsement of the petitioner regarding his receiving the same, nor any acknowledgment to this effect has been placed on record in order to show that the alleged 'Show Cause Notice' was served upon him. 12. Be that as it may, the enquiry report (Annexure R/3) dated 20/02/2014, placed on record by the respondents, would show that it was made as per the directions issued by the Respondent No.5- Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur on 19/02/2014. It was, thus, conducted in one day even without providing the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and merely, 9 based upon the alleged inquiry report, the alleged termination of his service was made by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur, vide order dated 07/07/2014 (Annexure P/1) and was found to be affirmed further by the Upper Collector, Raipur as well as by the Upper Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur vide its orders dated 07/05/2016 and 13/12/2016, respectively. It, thus, appears that the alleged appointment of the petitioner has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law. 13. Besides, the petitioner has admittedly been regularized vide order dated 26/12/2007 (Annexure P/3), however, a major punishment has been awarded to him by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat vide its order dated 07/07/2014 (Annexure P/1) by terminating his services. The question, which, therefore, arises for determination at this juncture would be as to, “Whether such a major punishment of termination of the services of the petitioner could be made by the respondent No.5-Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur ?” 14. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi, Grade III, vide order dated 21/06/2005 (Annexure P/2) in accordance with the provisions prescribed under the Rules, 1997, framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 53 and sub-section (1) of Section 70 read with sub-section (1) of Section 10 95 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. Rule 9 of the Rules, 1997, which is relevant for the purpose provides as under :- “9. Discipline and Control:- The Shiksha Karmis shall be under the administrative control of Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat, as the case may be. The General Administration Standing Committee of the Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat, as the case may be, shall be the disciplinary authority for major punishment and the Chief Executive Officer of the Panchayat for the minor punishment.” 15. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that the Shiksha Karmis shall be under the administrative control of the Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat, as the case may be, and the General Administration Standing Committee of the Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat, as the case may be, shall be the disciplinary authority for awarding the major punishment of a regular employee and, the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Panchayat for the minor punishment. However, in the instant matter, the services of the petitioner, who is the regular employee of the Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur, has been terminated while imposing major punishment upon him by the respondent No.5-Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur vide its order dated 07/07/2014 (Annexure P/1) and, the same has been found to be affirmed further by the Upper Collector, Raipur and the Upper Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur vide its orders dated 17/05/2016 and 13/12/2016, respectively even without examining the aforesaid specific provisions. 11 16. In view of the aforesaid provisions, as observed herein-above, the competent authority to award the major punishment would be the General Administration Standing Committee of the Janpad Panchayat and, therefore, the major punishment terminating the services of the petitioner as awarded by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur is wholly beyond his jurisdiction attracting the principles of corum non judice. 17. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 13/12/2016 (Annexure P/12) passed by the Upper Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in Appeal Case No.20/A- 89/2016-17 affirming the order dated 17/05/2016 (Annexure P/10) passed by the Upper Collector, Raipur in Appeal Case No.08-A/89(A)(15)/2015-16 and the order 07/07/2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.5- Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur, are hereby, quashed and the petitioner is, accordingly, held to be reinstated in his service with consequential benefits, except the full back-wages and allowances. The question of full back-wages and allowances shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Decision
18. The petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Prashant