Dhirendra Kumar Dhirhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:17236

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 7874 of 2022

¶6

Dhirendra Kumar Dhirhi S/o Shri. Chotelal Dhirhi Aged About 38 Years Digitally signed by Occupation- Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, Posted At Government Primary School, NADIM MOHLE Along, Distt. Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Office of District Education Officer, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3 - District Education Officer Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4 - Block Education Officer Office Of Development Block Education Officer, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶12

5 - Chief Executive Officer Office Of Janpad Panchayat Korba, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner	: Mr. Shubham Tripathi,Advocate
For State	: Mr. Abhishek Singh,Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.5	: Mr. Vedant Shadangi,Advocate
For C.G. Board of	: Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate
Secondary Education.

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

15/04/2026

¶18

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶19

“10.1. That, the petitioner most humbly and

¶20

respectfully prays to this Hon’ble Court to issue appropriate order/direction quashing the impugned order dated 01.12.2020 (Annexure P-1) and dated 26.09.2022 in respect of the petitioner.

¶21

2

¶22

10.2 That, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court order/direction issue to to respondents petitioner at his post/service.

¶23

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief(s), as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶24

10.4 Cost of the petition. ”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade- III vide order dated 14.12.2007 on the basis of mark-sheet of Class 12th, wherein he had secured 402 out of 500 marks. Later on, the services of the petitioner were regularised on 10.06.2011. Subsequently, his services were merged with the School Education Department vide order dated 10.08.2018. He would further submit that on 19.06.2019, a show cause notice was issued, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had submitted a forged mark sheet of Class 12 to secure appointment. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice and thereafter a departmental enquiry was proposed on 10.10.2019. Instead of conducting a departmental enquiry, a three-member committee was constituted, and on the basis of the report submitted by the said committee, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 01.12.2020.

¶26

He would also submit that an appeal was preferred against the said order before the Joint Director, Education Division Bilaspur and the same was dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2022. He would contend that the petitioner was a civil servant, and the penalty of termination was inflicted without following the prescribed rules, whereas the respondent authorities were under obligation to conduct an enquiry in accordance with Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1966; thus, the order of

¶27

3

¶28

termination of services and the subsequent order passed in appeal are bad in law and liable to be quashed.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that sufficient opportunities of hearing have been afforded to the petitioner. He would further submit that a three-member committee was constituted, which found that two mark sheets had been submitted by the petitioner, wherein one mark sheet bearing Roll No. 24500500, the petitioner had obtained 225 out of 500 marks, whereas in another mark sheet with the same roll number, he had obtained 402 out of 500 marks. Both mark sheets were found to be forged. It is submitted that on the basis of report submitted by the Committee, order impugned has been passed against the petitioner, which was affirmed by the appellate authority; thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education would submit that the marksheet wherein the petitioner obtained 225/500 is found valid and genuine, whereas the mark sheet in which the petitioner secured 402 /500 marks was found to be forged.

¶31

Mr. Tripathi has informed this Court that the petitioner secured employment on the basis of the mark sheet in which he secured 225/ 500 marks, and the same has been found valid by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education.

¶32

The services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground that he submitted forged mark sheet to secure a government job. It is also apparent from the record that no steps were taken by the Department to examine the veracity of the mark sheets which were submitted by the petitioner along with the application form.

¶33

4

¶34

It is also not in dispute that the services of the petitioner were absorbed in the School Education Department, and he acquired the status of a civil servant, therefore, the impugned orders dated 01.12.2020 & 26.09.2022 are not sustainable, as the disciplinary authority was required to apply the provisions contained in Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1966, and was under an obligation to conduct an enquiry in accordance with the said rules.

¶35

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the orders dated 01.12.2020 and 26.09.2022 are hereby quashed .

¶36

The respondent authorities would be at liberty to initiate fresh enquiry strictly in accordance with the CCA Rules, 1966.

¶37

10.The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent authorities within a period of 90 days.

¶38

11.In case, upon enquiry, the petitioner is found innocent, he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits attached to the post from the date of termination accordingly.

¶39

12.With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is hereby disposed of . No order as to cost.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Nadim

Dhirendra Kumar Dhirhi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirendra Kumar Dhirhi 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

Piyush Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Lakhan Singh Divya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivnarayan Markam Vs Sukhbai Jangde

Prashant Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Kumar Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kunja Sagar Vs State of Chhattisgarh