Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ranjana Tirkey vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1251 Chatt

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1251 Chatt
Judgement Date : 10 March, 2022

Chattisgarh High Court
Ranjana Tirkey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2022
                                    1

                                                                    NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           WA No. 581 of 2019

Ranjana Tirkey D/o Late Patras Tirkey Aged About 41 Years R/o ELC
Mission Compound, Baikunthpur, District - Korea Chhattisgarh.

                                                             ---- Appellant

                                 Versus

1.   State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of School
     Education Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2.   Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baikunthpur, District -
     Korea Chhattisgarh.

                                                         ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Gautam Chourdiya, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

10.03.2022

Heard Ms. Diksha Gouraha, learned counsel for the appellant. Also

heard Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for

the respondent No.1.

2. In the writ petition, the respondent No. 2, was Chief Executive

Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baikunthpur, District - Koriya, Chhattisgarh.

By filing an amendment application, registered as I.A. No. 03 of 2020, the

appellant has prayed for substitution of "Chief Executive Officer, Janpad

Panchayat, Baikunthpur" by "Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat,

Koriya, District - Koriya". Prayer is also made for substitution of words

"termination order" as appearing in relief clause Sr. No.(II) of this appeal

by "punishment order".

3. When the writ petition was disposed of with array of parties as

indicated in the writ petition, it will not be permissible to amend the array

of parties by impleading a party in the writ appeal, as the same would

alter the basic structure of the writ petition.

4. So far as amendment prayed for substitution of the words

"termination order", in relief clause at Sr. No. (II) in this appeal, same is

allowed.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant will make appropriate

correction in the prayer portion.

6. I.A. No. 03 of 2020 is partly allowed as indicated above. The same

stands disposed of.

7. The appeal is directed against an order dated 22.10.2019 passed

by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 8745 of 2019, which reads as

follows:

"1. Contention of the petitioner is that punishment

has been imposed by order dated 3/02/2015

(Annexure P-1) whereby the increment and the

payment has been stopped with cumulative effect. It

is contended that under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh

Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,

1999 provide that without enquiry no penalty even

minor penalty can be imposed.

2. Be that as it may, order is passed under the Act

by the CEO, therefore under the Chhattisgarh

Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 it

would be appealable before the appropriate

authority as per the rules. Order was passed in

2015. Petitioner do not care to challenge the same

for four years. It is all of a sudden the petitioner has

come out of the slumber and has shown emergency

and has pressed for stay. Learned counsel further

submits that the petitioner may be given liberty. This

court cannot give the liberty by way to condone the

delay for an appeal which may be filed before other

forum. It is the respective forum which will decide

whether any sufficient cause has been shown to

condone the delay or not. The petitioner after four

years have preferred this petition, what is the

continuance of cause of action it is to be

appreciated by the appellate authority if appeal is

preferred, therefore I am not inclined to entertain

this petition on the ground that appellate remedy is

available under the Rules.

3. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed."

8. The learned Single Judge refused to entertain the writ petition,

which was filed four years after passing of the order imposing penalty, in

view of availability of alternative remedy.

9. We find no good ground to interfere with the view taken by the

learned Single Judge and, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

                     Sd/-                                     Sd/-
           (Arup Kumar Goswami)                        (Gautam Chourdiya)
                Chief Justice                                Judge




Hem
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter