Sumer Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SAGRIKA SAGRIKA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2025.09.09 11:28:54 +0530

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1666 of 2024

¶6

1 - Sumer Singh Son Of Shri Lalji Singh Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted Antrik Lekha Parikshan Evam Kararopan Adhikari, Janpad Panchayat Masturi, Block Masturi, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G.

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Dist. Raipur, C.G.

¶10

2 - Directorate Of Panchayat And Rural Development Through Its Director, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Dist. Raipur, C.G.

¶11

3 - Divisional Joint Director Panchayat And Rural Development, Bilaspur Division, Composite Building Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Y. C. harma, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Yashraj Verma & Ms. Meera Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

08.09.2025

¶17

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following relief:-

¶18

2

¶19

10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the petitioner from the respondent authorities, for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner back into service without any disruption.

¶20

10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶21

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was the Rural Assistant and was posted at Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, Dist- Bilaspur. A criminal case vide Special Case No. 24/1996 was registered against him for the offence under Section 149, 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as SC/ST Act) which was pending before the learned Special Judge under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at Bilaspur, in which the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 149, 323 of IPC and also under Section 3 (1)(X) of SC/ST Act by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 28.02.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 269/2002 before this Court which was decided on 21.06.2023 and the appellant was acquitted from the charge of Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, however, his conviction under Section 149 and 323 of IPC is maintained. Since, the substantive offence of Section 323 of IPC does not come under the moral turpitude and it may not have any effece on the service of the petitioner, he moved his representation on 10.07.2023 before the Respondent No. 3 for reinstatement of his

¶22

3

¶23

served as he was suspended from service vide order dated 17.05.2002 pursuant to the said criminal case, but till date, the representation of the petitioner has not been decided by the authorities concerned and therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to make a fresh representation before the Respondent No. 2 and in such eventuality the Respondent No. 2 may be directed to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner for reinstatement of his service in accordance with law within the stipulated time frame.

¶24

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/ State, though opposes the claim of the petitioner on merits, however, she would submit that she has no objection if such a direction is being given to the Respondent No. 2 to decide the representation made by the petitioner within a stipulated time frame in accordance with law.

¶25

4. Considering the limited submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make his fresh representation within 02 weeks from today to the Respondent No. 2 along with the copy of this order and in such eventuality the Respondent No. 2 is directed to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner within the further period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order in accordance with law and also in view of the applicable rules and circulars holding the filed.

¶26

5. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶27

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶28

sagrika

Sumer Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumer Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pranav Kumar Garg Vs Manoj Kumar Pingua IAS

Lalaram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satyam Mahapatra Vs Union of India

Dahruram Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Kala Nand Choudhary Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Laddheram Chandrakar Vs Dr. B. L. Raj