VIRENDRA CHAUHAN vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010430312026 2026:CGHC:46167
NAFR
SOURABH
BHILWAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
BHILWAR
Date: 2026.11.04
11:56:13 +0530
WPS No. 7838 of 2026
Virendra Chauhan S/o Late Jagdish Chauhan Aged About 35 Years R/o
Village Barnai Dadar, Post Jagdishpur, Tahsil Pithora, Distt-
Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest And
Climate Change Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Distt-
Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Aranya Bhawan, Nava Raipur,
Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest, Raipur Circle Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasamund Forest Division
Mahasamund, Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.)
5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Forest) Pithora, Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.)
6 - Range Forest Officer, Forest Range Pithora, Pithora Distt-
Mahasamund (C.G.)
7 - Depot Officer, Timber Depot, Pithora Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.)

... Respondents
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

2
For Petitioner : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate
For Respondents/ State : Mr. Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate
(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
02/11/2026
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the
impugned attachment order dated 21.10.2026 (Annexure P/1),
whereby the services of the petitioner has been attached to the
office of respondent No.7.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-III vide order dated
15.03.2022 and has been working with utmost sincerity and
dedication. She submits that the petitioner has been working
under respondent No. 6 since 19.07.2025. However, vide
impugned order dated 21.10.2026 (Annexure P/1), respondent
No. 4/ Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Mahasamund has
attached the petitioner to the office of respondent No. 7/ Timber
Depot, Pithora, contrary to the circular dated 04.06.2001
(Annexure P/1) issued by the State Government, whereby a
complete ban has been imposed on the attachment of services of
Government employees. She, therefore, submits that the
impugned order has been passed without issuing any show-cause
notice to the petitioner and is, therefore, illegal and unsustainable
in law.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and

3
submits that certain complaints have been received against the
petitioner and, in order to maintain administrative efficiency, the
impugned order of attachment has been passed. It is further
submitted that the attachment has been ordered on account of
administrative exigency and special circumstances by the
competent authority. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in
the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents as well as the circular of the State Government.
5. From perusal of the record, this Court finds that although the
impugned order appears to have been passed on account of
certain alleged negligence on the part of the petitioner, in
substance, it is an order of attachment. It is also apparent that the
attachment has been ordered on the basis of certain alleged
negligence against the petitioner. Though there is a prohibition of
passing attachment orders pursuant to the circular dated
04.06.2001 issued by the State Government, if the shifting of the
petitioner was necessary on account of any alleged misconduct,
the respondent authorities were free to pass an order of transfer
or to take appropriate action against the petitioner as may be
permissible in accordance with law and the applicable policy of
the State Government.
6. This Court finds that the State Government, vide circular dated
04.06.2001, has imposed a complete ban on attachment of the
services of Government employees. In view of the said circular,
the impugned order, having been passed contrary to the

4
instructions issued by the State Government, cannot be sustained
in law.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order of attachment dated 21.10.2026
(Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed and the writ petition is
allowed .
8. However, the State shall be at liberty to take appropriate action
and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, if any
administrative exigency arise in future.
Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Judge
$. Bhilwar