Dilip Rangari v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appell
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.06.30 16:18:10 +0530 2025:CGHC:28885-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 417 of 2025 1 - Mission Director State Project Office, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector And District Mission Director Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Project Coordinator Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellants 1 - Dilip Rangari S/o Amritlal Rangari Aged About 43 Years R/o Station Para, Ward No. 9, Rajnandgaon, Police Station And Post Rajnandgaon, Civil And Revenue District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education, Department/ Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer Block Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
For Respondent-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30.06. 2025 1. Heard Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for State/respondents No.2 to 4. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief(s):- “In light of the facts and grounds set forth, the Appellant most respectfully prays that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this Writ Appeal and quash/set aside the order passed by Hon’ble Single Bench dated 16.12.2024 passed in WPS No.1446/2015 (Annexure A/1), including the grant of 50% back wages, in the interest of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.1446/2015 (Dilip Rangari v. State of Chhattisgarh
Decision
and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been allowed. 4. Brief facts of the case, are that respondent No.1/writ petitioner 3 was initially appointed as Block Resource Co-ordinator in District Project Office, Block Centre of Rajeev Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mision on contractual basis on a fixed monthly pay. His appointment was in accordance with the legal provisions and through proper selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1996 and after inviting applications from all the eligible candidates. The written test was held, thereafter interview was also conducted and selection list was published, respondent No.1/writ petitioner was accordingly selected and appointed on the post of Block Resource Central Co-ordinator and was posted at Block Rajnandgaon and continued his services up to 23.03.2015. He was terminated by way of punishment for allegations of misconduct from his service vide order dated 23.03.2015 passed by Collector-cum-District Mission Director, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Neither show cause notice was issued nor the copy of enquiry report was given to him and on the basis of the enquiry conducted. The order of termination is not an order of termination simpliciter in terms of Clause 2 as well as Clause 6 of the appointment order dated 06.12.1997, but it is a stigmatic order holding that severe financial irregularities had been committed him. 5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha 4 Mission, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, respondent No.1/writ petitioner has filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge vide WPS No.1446/2015, which was allowed on 16.12.2024 holding that respondent No.1/ writ petitioner was reinstated in his post with 50% back wages and the respondent authorities were also directed to allow him to perform his duty attached to the post. However, liberty was granted to the respondents to initiate proper departmental enquiry against the writ petitioner, if so desire and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing/defence to him as also passed an appropriate order in accordance with law and also adhering to the principles of natural justice. 6. Challenging the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, instant appeal has been filed by the appellants / respondents No.2 to 4 therein. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Single Bench has failed to appreciate the fact that after a thorough enquiry conducted by a duly constituted enquiry committee, respondent No.1/writ petitioner was found guilty of financial irregularities and misappropriation of public funds amounting to Rs. 56,34,177/-. The finding of the committee was based on a detailed review of records and documents, which were not properly considered by the learned Single Judge. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has not given adequate 5 weightage to the fact that the misconduct of the writ petitioner was investigated in compliance with the established procedures, including the constitution of an enquiry committee by the District Project Coordinator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission and the subsequent approval of the Collector for further action. The gravity of the allegations, particularly that the writ petitioner made unauthorized payments and violated the Finance Code and Government directives, as such resulted in a significant financial irregularity, which directly affected public funds and required disciplinary action. It has been contended that the learned Single Bench has failed to acknowledge the fact that an FIR was lodged against respondent No.1/writ petitioner on 03.02.2015, based on the enquiry report, and criminal charges were framed under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. It has been further contended that learned Single Judge has not properly considered the fact that based on the enquiry findings and legal proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner, the termination of his services was a necessary and justified action to safeguard public trust and accountability in the Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission. The termination of the writ petitioner was a necessary measure to protect the integrity of the Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission and to uphold public confidence in the proper management of public funds. It has been argued that learned Single Bench failed to recognize that respondent No.1/writ petitioner was employed on a contractual basis, and his actions 6 breached the terms and conditions of his employment, thereby justifying his termination in accordance with contractual obligations and the seriousness of the allegations. As such, the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the order of termination was not a termination simpliciter, but a dismissal for misconduct and before passing such order, respondent No.1/writ petitioner has never been levelled for any financial irregularities nor any financial irregularities have been proved against the petitioner, simply allegation of delay of presenting the file or sending the file without an authorized person directly to the Mission Director, which was evident from the record of the respondents itself that he was not responsible for the same. He further submits that the Collector- cum-District Mission Director had conducted the enquiry and evidence was received and findings as to misconduct or a definitive nature are arrived at behind the back of the petitioner and on the basis of such report, the termination order was issued, which was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. He further submits that considering the overall aspects of the matter, has rightly passed impugned order dated 16.12.2024 passed in WPS No.1446/2015, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 7 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 10. After considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge while relying upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of U.P. Road Transport Corporation and others v. Brijesh Kumar and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2282 as well as the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.3288/2020 decided on 11.04.2023, has passed the impugned order in the following terms:- “10. It is vivid from the said impugned order that the service of the petitioner was terminated on the ground of committing severe financial irregularities, so it is vivid that the said impugned order is stigmatic. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra), held in para 19, which reads as under:- “ 19. The services of the respondent have been determined solely on the ground of misconduct as alleged but without holding any regular inquiry or affording any opportunity of hearing to him. The termination order has been passed on the basis of some report which probably was not even supplied to the respondent. No show cause notice 8 appears to have been issued to the respondent. Therefore, the order of termination of his services, even if on contractual basis, has been passed on account of alleged misconduct without following the Principles of Natural Justice. The termination order is apparently stigmatic in nature which could not have been passed without following the Principles of Natural Justice. 12. The order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 3288/2020 is in favour of the petitioner. The Court has observed in para 10 to 13 as under :- "10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chandra Prakash Shahi (supra) in para 12 has observed as under:- "12. Now, it is well settled that the temporary government servants or probationers are as much entitled to the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as the permanent employees despite the fact that temporary government servants have no right to hold the post and their services are liable to be terminated at any time by giving them a month's notice without assigning any reason either in terms of the contract of service or under the 9 relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of such service. The courts can, therefore, lift the veil of an innocuously-worded order to look at the real face of the order and to find out whether it is as innocent as worded. (See: Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36) It is explained in this decision that inefficiency, negligence or misconduct may have been the factors for inducing the Government to terminate the services of a temporary. employee under the terms of the contract or under the statutory Service Rules regulating the terms and conditions of service which, to put in differently, may have been the motive for terminating the services but the motive by itself does not make the order punitive unless the order was "founded" on those factors or other disqualifications." 11. In the matter of Kaushal Chandrakar (supra) this Court in para-20 held as under:- "20. The Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Vijaykumaran (supra) has clearly held that material which amounts to stigma need not be contained in the order of termination of the probationer, but might be contained in any document referred to in the termination order. It 10 was further held that such reference may inevitably affect the future prospects of the incumbent and if so, the order must be construed as ex facie stigmatic order of termination…" 12. In the matter of Rahul Tripathi (supra) it is held by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that though the replies were not found satisfactory, but no inquiry was conducted and thereafter, issuance of order of termination attaches stigma though the contract period ended, consequently, order of termination was set-aside with all consequential benefits. 13. Sum and substance of the above discussion would be: (1) the petitioner was appointed for a period of one year; (ii) no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing impugned order; (iii) though the petitioner has been removed according to the Rule 11 (5) of the Rules, 2012 by following the conditions of appointment given in clause 5, but order of termination passed against the petitioner is stigmatic and cannot be regarded as a termination simpliciter; (iv) no enquiry was conducted by the employer before passing of the order impugned." 13. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of above judgments, it is an 11 admitted fact that the petitioner was working since 06.12.1997 on contractual basis and his appointment order dated 06.12.1997 is Annexure P/3 and vide impugned order dated 23.03.2015 (Annexure P/1) his service was terminated. It is also clear that impugned order dated 23.03.2015 is not a termination simpliciter, but it is held to be a stigmatic or punitive on this ground that it is alleged that petitioner is terminated from his service due to committing severe financial irregularities and same has passed without compliance of principles of natural justice and without holding any departmental enquiry. 14. As such looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned termination order dated 23.03.2015 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed/set aside with all consequential benefits and petitioner is reinstated in his post with 50% back wages. Respondent authorities are directed to allow the petitioner to perform his duty attached to the post. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate proper departmental enquiry against the petitioner, if so desire and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing/defence to the petitioner, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and also adhering to the principles of natural justice. 15. As an upshot, the writ petition stands 12 allowed to the above extent. ” 11. From perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that respondent No.1/writ petitioner was employed on a contractual basis and his actions breached the terms and conditions of his employment leading to his termination in accordance with contractual obligations, which was set aside by the learned Single Judge while giving a direction to reinstate the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 with all consequential benefits as well as 50% back wages. It was also observed in the order itself that the liberty was granted in favour of the respondents to initiate proper departmental enquiry against respondent No.1/writ petitioner, if so desired and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing/defence to respondent No.1/writ petitioner as also passed an appropriate order in accordance with law as well as adhering to the principles of natural justice. 12. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties, particularly the fact that the learned Single Judge has given a liberty to the respondents to initiate proper departmental enquiry, the appellants are directed to initiate proper departmental enquiry against respondent No.1/writ petitioner and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing/defence to respondent No.1/writ petitioner, shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 13 13. Till then, the impugned order directing reinstatement of the petitioner in his post with 50% back wages is kept in abeyance. 14. In view of the above, the writ appeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid observation/direction. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Anu