Kailash Kumar Vaidya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:22507

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 4023 of 2025

¶6

1. Kailash Kumar Vaidya S/o Shri Radheshyam Vaidya Aged About 44 Years R/o Quarter No. H-18, Pakhanjur, Tahsil- Pakhanjur, DistrictNorth Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nawa-Raipur Atal Nagar, Dist- Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2. Director, Directorate Of Panchayat, Raipur, Sector- 19, North Block, Vikas Bhawan, Ground Floor, Nawa-Raipur Atal Nagar, Dist- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3. Collector, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶12

4. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶13

5. District Education Officer, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶14

6. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Koyalibeda, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate

¶17

For Respondent(s)/ : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate

¶18

State

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

05.06.2025

¶22

With the consent of both the parties, the matter heard finally.

¶23

2

¶24

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed respondent No. 4 whereby the petitioner was called upon to submit his written statement of defence within three days from the date of receipt of the said order. By the said order, the petitioner was also required to explain as to (i) whether he requires an enquiry, (ii) whether he requires any oral hearing and (iii) whether he wants to produce any documents in his defence.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶26

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and he has removed from service without complying the provisions of Rule 7 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and respondent No. 6 has passed termination order without conducting any enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner has challenged the said order before this Court and this Court has ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner and in compliance of the order of this Court, petitioner has already been reinstated in service.

¶27

Thereafter, respondent Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Kanker has issued charge-sheet to the petitioner and called upon to submit written statements of defense within 3 days from the date of receipt of the order, by that order the petitioner was also required to explain as to (i) whether he requires an enquiry (ii) whether he requires any oral hearing (iii) whether he wants to produce any documents in this respect.

¶28

3

¶29

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would make a limited prayer that the present writ petition may be disposed of by extending the time limit prescribed in the impugned order dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) and the petitioner may be permitted to raise all such grounds in his defence before the respondent No. 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Kanker, District - North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.).

¶30

In this regard learned State counsel has no objection.

¶31

Considering the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the time period given by the respondent authority to the petitioner is very short period only 3 days time, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the time limit prescribed in the impugned order dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) from 3 days to 15 days and the petitioner also permitted to raise all such grounds in his defence before the respondent No. 4 including competence of the disciplinary authority.

¶32

With the aforesaid direction/observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of .

¶33

Consequently, all the pending applications also stands disposed of.

¶34

SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶35

Manish

Kailash Kumar Vaidya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Kumar Vaidya 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

Ku. Hema Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khilesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravi Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nitin Samuel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bharat Lal Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Lata Vaidya Vs State of Chhattisgarh