2024:CGHC:28718-DB AFR Digitally signed by PRAVEEN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR KUMAR SINHA Date:

2024.08.06 WA No. 676 of 2022

19:25:46 +0530 Dishan Singh Dahariya S/o Kalyan Das Dahariya Aged About 27 Years R/o Village And Post Kathiya No. 2 Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. District And Session Judge District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate D.B. : Hon'ble the Chief Justice &

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment on Board

02/08/2024 Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

1. Challenge in this writ appeal is to order dated 01.11.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.106 of 2020 whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant against order of his removal from service passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Durg has been dismissed.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ appeal are that petitioner/appellant was appointed as Stenographer (Hindi) vide order dated 20.03.2018 in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Durg along with other 11 candidates. It is the case of the appellant that Presiding Officer of Court of 3^rd Civil Judge, Class- I Durg where the appellant was sent to discharge his duties has misbehaved with him on 30.01.2019, therefore, a complaint was made to the District Judge, Durg. District and Sessions Judge, Durg issued memo dated 05.08.2019 alleging that the petitioner/appellant has directly sent the photocopy of the complaint dated 01.02.2019 before the Registry of Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which is misconduct as defined in Rule 3(3)(d)(x) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct Rules),1965 and punishable under Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification,Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 05.08.2019 was issued to the petitioner/appellant to explain within 3 days to which appellant submitted reply on 07.08.2019 stating that he has not made correspondence with the Registrar General of the High Court. Thereafter, the learned District Judge, Durg vide memo dated 27.08.2019 directed the appellant to explain as to how his complaint has been sent to the Registrar General and explain who has sent the complaint directly, otherwise it will be presumed that it has been sent by the petitioner/appellant only. The petitioner/appellant could not submit reply, therefore, a show cause notice was issued on 25.11.2019 why his services may not be terminated with immediate effect. The petitioner/appellant submitted reply to the memo of the District and Sessions Judge, Durg vide its letter dated 27.11.2019 explaining that the office bearer of the Employee’s Union has sought copy of the complaint from the petitioner, one of the Union leader has taken photo of the same and posted the same in WhatsApp group without his knowledge and permission. Thereafter, the print out of the complaint has been submitted before the Registrar General of the High Court. He was not involved in sending the complaint directly to the Registrar General. In support of his submissions, he has submitted affidavit and prayed that the proceedings be kindly closed. The Additional District Judge, Durg again sought clarification vide memo dated 05.12.2019 that the explanation given by him is not satisfactory, therefore, the petitioner/appellant has again submitted reply which was pending consideration. In the meantime, the impugned order dated 24.12.2019 has been issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Durg removing the petitioner/appellant from services on the ground that the services of the petitioner are not required and one month's salary has been paid to him.

3. The petitioner has filed the writ petition assailing t