Smt. Lata Vaidya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuroop Panda, holding the brief of Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/ : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate. State

¶19

2

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

05.06.2025

¶23

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

¶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 by the 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 was 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 No.4/CEO Jila Panchayat Kanker has issued the charge-sheet/charge memo against the petitioner and directed to submit the written statement of defence within 3 days from the date of receipt of the order, by that order the said 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