YTOIWGAERSIH DYD17 Oi a g :tG 4 i e t 2 E: a : S2 l 4 l 0Hy 1 2 s + T6 igI.00Wn 53 e 3 A. d 10 R 7 bIy2026:CGHC:11655

Order on Board

11.03.2026

1. Heard Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 09.04.2021, whereby the petitioner, who was working as a Grade-III employee on the post of Driver under the Chhattisgarh State Legal Services Authority, has been inflicted with the major penalty of termination from service pursuant to a departmental enquiry. The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent order dated 11.05.2023, whereby the appeal/representation preferred by the petitioner against the order of termination has been rejected by the respondent authorities. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records about the case of the petitioner.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reduce the punishment given to the petitioner, as the punishment is too harsh considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the materials available on record.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased this Hon'ble Court may kindly direct to set-aside/quash the order dated 11-05-2023 and 09-04-2021 (Annexure P-1 & P-2) and also reconsider their decision.

10.4 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner considering his economical condition and the duration of service left to serve in the respective department.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Grade-III employee on the post of Driver under the Chhattisgarh State Legal Services Authority. Vide order dated 28.03.2016, the services of the petitioner were made permanent with effect from 01.01.2016. On the same date, the petitioner was transferred from District Legal Services Authority, Durg to District Legal Services Authority, Kanker, which is situated at a distance of about 150– 200 kilometers from the place where the petitioner and his family were residing.

4. Being aggrieved by the said transfer and the difficulties likely to be faced by him, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WPS No.1137/2016, wherein Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.09.2016 directed the respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that since his family was residing at Bilaspur and there was no other male member to look after the family affairs, it became extremely difficult for the petitioner to manage the day-to-day responsibilities. Various representations were also submitted by the wife of the petitioner and recommendations were made by different authorities seeking transfer of the petitioner to a suitable place, however, no relief was granted.

6. It is further the case of the petitioner that owing to the aforesaid family circumstances and obligations, the petitioner had to remain absent from duty on certain occasions. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 29.01.2020 mainly on the allegations of unauthorized absence, usage of mobile phone during office hours and entering into disputes with outsiders. According to the petitioner, the leaves earlier availed by him had already been sanctioned as unpaid leave by the respondent authorities. However, a departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, which according to him was carried out in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no relevant documents were supplied to him and no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was provi