Smt. Shahjadi Bano vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 June, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Shahjadi Bano vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 June, 2025

                                       1




                                                         2025:CGHC:22505


                                                                          NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                           WPS No. 4018 of 2025

   1. Smt. Shahjadi Bano W/o Shri Mumovar Aged About 31 Years R/o
      Village And Post- Badegaon, Block- Koyalibeda, Tahsil- Pakhanjur,
      District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
                                                              ... Petitioner(s)

                                    versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of
      Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
      Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
   2. Director Directorate Of Panchayat, Raipur, Sector- 19, North Block,
      Vikas Bhawan, Ground Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District
      Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
   3. Collector Kanker District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
   4. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Kanker, District North Bastar
      Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
   5. District Education Officer Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker,
      Chhattisgarh.
   6. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Koyalibeda, District
      North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
                                                           ... Respondent(s)

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

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

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Order on Board
05.06.2025

With the consent of both the parties, the matter heard finally.
2

1. 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.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length

and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is appointed as Shiksha

Karmi Grade-III and she 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.

4. 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.

3

5. 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.).

6. In this regard learned State counsel has no objection.

7. 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.

8. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the instant writ petition

stands disposed of.

9. Consequently, all the pending applications also stands disposed of.

SD/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge

Manish