Dismissed¶¶22

Prakash Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh.

Chhattisgarh HC8 Feb 2026WPS/6749/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPS No. 6749 of 2018, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, decided 09/02/2026 (neutral citation line 2025:CGHC:48862) — Prakash Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & others. Termination of services after conviction under Section 354 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act (Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No. 05/2017); misconduct under Rule 3(1) & (3), C.G. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965; jurisdiction of terminating authority; absorption of Zila Panchayat employee into State service retrospective to 01.07.2018 via order dated 25.08.2018; writ petition dismissed, no costs. Counsel: Punit Ruparel (petitioner); Suyashdhar Badgaiyya, G.A. (respondents 1 & 3); S.B. Pandey (respondent 2).

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed, no order as to cost. ¶¶22

Prakash Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.02.17 12:21:51 +0530

¶2

2025:CGHC:48862

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 6749 of 2018

¶6

Prakash Sahu, S/o Late Shri Santram Sahu, aged about 43 Years, R/o Old Power House, C/o Verma Pan Center, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh. Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh;

¶9

2 - Zila Panchayat Bilaspur Through C.E.O. Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh;

¶10

3 - District Education Officer Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 & : Shri Suyashdhar Badgaiyya, G.A. 3/ State For Respondent No.2 : Shri S.B. Pandey, Advocate.

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

09/02/2026

¶15

Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 24/08/2018 passed by the respondent No.3 by which the services of the petitioner was terminated on account of he being convicted for an offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, III Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No. 05/2017 for 04 years. Thus, holding it be misconduct of under Rule 3 (1) & (3) of C.G. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,1965.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner raised only one contention that the petitioner was working with respondent No.2 and was absorbed with the

¶17

-2-

¶18

State Government vide order date 25.08.2018 and the impugned order was passed on 24.08.2018, thus, the respondent No.2 has no jurisdictional authority to passed an order of termination (Annexure P-1).

¶19

Learned Counsel for the State opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the order of absorption was passed on 25.08.2018. However, the order specifically speaks that the effect of that order would be from 01.07.2018 by which the services of the petitioner was already absorbed with the State Government with effect from 01.07.2018. Thus there is no illegality or irregularity and jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order by respondent No.3.

¶20

Respondent No.2 submits that looking to the fact that the petitioner was convicted in a serious offence of moral turpitude. There is no illegality or irregularity in passing the order.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record appended in the documents.

¶22

Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that it is passed by respondent No. 3 on 24.08.2018. It also reflects that the petitioner was convicted for 05 years for the offences mentioned here-in-above. The absorption dated 25.08.2018 is placed on record by the respondent/State according to which, the order would have it’s effect from 01^st July, 2018 and name of the petitioner also finds place meaning thereby the services of the petitioner was absorbed with the respondent No.1/State Government with effect to 01.07.2018. Thus in view of the above, this Court does not find merits in the contention of Shri Ruparel, Advocate. Thus, this writ petition sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶23

No order as to cost. Sd/-

¶24

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶25

Ashish

Prakash Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Sahu 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

Rambhau Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs Maheshwar Soni

Ajeet Singh Vs Savitri Davi And Anr.

Monika Sharma Vs Umashankar Sharma

Dhananjay Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Neha Devi