Digitally NAFR signed by SHAYNA KADRI HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 15.01.2026 Order passed on : 13.02.2026 WPS No. 366 of 2023

1 - Hirmaram Markam S/o Shri Kesha Markam Aged About 38 Years R/o Near Higher Secondary School, Chhindgarh, P.O. Chhindgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgar ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, P.S. And P.O. - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Sukma, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh

3 - Collector, Sukma, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh

4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Chhindgarh, District :

Sukuma, Chhattisgarh

5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sukma, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh

6 - Tahsildar, Chhindgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Akash Deep Sharma, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Anish Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 4 : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)]

C.A.V. Order

1. The Petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, has called in question the legality, validity, and propriety of the impugned order dated 29.10.2020 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No. 02, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated. The said impugned order is assailed on the ground that it has been issued in an arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional manner, without following the procedure prescribed under law and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, resulting in grave prejudice to the petitioner, hence, this writ petition is preferred seeking following reliefs :

“10.1 Issue appropriate writ/direction/order setting-aside the impugned order dt. 29.10.2020 (Annexure P-1) and the entire subsequent action, in the interest of justice.

10.2 To direct the concerned respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner into his services with all consequential benefits of period of suspension and termination.

10.3 To hold that the entire enquiry is illegal and the subsequent enquiry report may kindly be set aside.

10.4 To provide compensation and cost of the petition to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

2. Facts of the case, as canvased are that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kawasiras, Janpad Panchayat Chhindgarh, District Sukma (C.G.). While the petitioner was discharging his duties as Panchayat Secretary, certain private individuals made complaints alleging misappropriation of Government funds pertaining to various schemes. Pursuant thereto, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the respondent authorities and, thereafter, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. On the basis of the said preliminary enquiry report, the petitioner’s services were terminated and a recovery order dated 17.05.2019 was also issued against him. Aggrieved by the said termination order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 before the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur (C.G.). The learned Commissioner, vide order dated 28.09.2019, partly allowed the appeal and categorically held that the enquiry report was contrary to law, non-speaking in nature, and contained recommendations for punishment which was impermissible under the rules. Consequently, the termination order was set aside and the respondent authorities were directed to reinstate the petitioner and to conduct a fresh departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with law. After passing of the appellate order, the petitioner submitted several applications seeking reinstatement in service in compliance of the directions issued by the learned Commissioner. However, instead of reinstating the petitioner as directed, the respon