High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.03.26 10:55:04 +0530 1 HIGH C OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:14166 NAFR ORDER RESERVED ON 12.03.2025 ORDER DELIVERED ON 25.03.2025 WPS No. 2792 of 2020 1 - Sachin Kumar Soni S/o Sagar Prasad Soni Aged About 35 Years Working As Assistant Programmer, At Janpad Panchayat Balrampur, P.S.- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj,(C.G.) versus --- Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Zila Panchayat Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.) 2 - Collector Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5. - District Program Officer (Mgnrega)- Balrampur Zila Panchayat Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) --- Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Manisha Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No. 3 to 5 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 WPS No. 2798 of 2020 1 - Anup Toppo S/o Moric Toppo, Aged About 37 Years Working As Accountant, At Janpad Panchayat Balrampur, P.S. Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Collector, Balrampur Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Balrampur Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur ,(C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, (C.G.) 5 - District Program Officer (Mgnrega)- Balrampur, Zila Panchayat Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur,(C.G.) --- Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr A.K. Yadav, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No. 3 to 5 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WPS No. 2804 of 2020 1 - Jagmohan Singh Ayam S/o Rampati Singh Aged About 35 Years Working As Technical Assistant, At Janpad Panchayat- Ramchandrapur, P.S.- Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Zilla Panchayat Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 2 - Collector Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer , Zilla Panchayat Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat- Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.) 5 - District Program Officer (Mgnrega)- Balrampur Zilla Panchayat Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, (C.G.) --- Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr A.K. Yadav, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No. 3 to 5 : None present. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WPS No. 2783 of 2020 1 - Ambika Prasad Ekka S/o Jamhira Prasad Aged About 32 Years Working As Accountant, At Janpad Panchayat Balrampur P. S. Balrampur District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Collector Balrampur Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Balrampur Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, (C.G.) 4 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Balrampur District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, (C.G.) 5 - District Program Officer (Mgnrega) Balrampur Zila Panchayat Balrampur District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh -- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No. 3 to 5 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi C A V Order 1. Since common question of law & fact are involved in all the aforesaid writ petitions, therefore, they are being heard analogously and decided by this common order. 2. Instant writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred by respective petitioners against the order dated 27- 05-2020 passed by Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) [Respondent No. 3 herein], whereby services of the petitioners have been terminated. [For the sake of convenience, WPS No. 2792/2020 would be taken-up as lead case] 3. The imperative facts required to be noticed for adjudication of these petitions, as projected by the petitioners, are that : Petitioners namely Sachin Kumar Soni (in WPS No. 2792 /2020), Ambika Prasad Ekka (in WPS No. 2783 of 2020), Anup Toppo (in WPS No. 2798 of 2020) 5 and Jagmohan Singh Ayam (in WPS No. 2804 /2020) were initially appointed on the post of “Assistant Programmer”, “Accountant”, “Accountant” & “Technical Assistant” vide order dated 03-10-2015, 02- 09-2010, 02-09-2010 & 31-03-2015, respectively on contractual basis and their appointments were made under “Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme” thereafter, their service have been extended every year on the basis of their annual confidential report / Performance Appraisal Report (PAR). Subsequently, vide impugned order dated 27-05-2020, services of the petitioners have been terminated, according to the petitioners, which is violative of terms & condition mentioned in the appointment order of the petitioners as well as the provisions contained in The Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 (henceforth “Rules, 2012”). 4. The respondent No. 3/Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Balrampur-Ramanujganj, vide common impugned order dated 27-05- 2020, has terminated the services of the respective petitioners on the ground that their services have not been found satisfactory in view of their Annual Confidential Report / Performance Appraisal Report. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the same, all the petitioners have filed instant writ petitions questioning the same. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respective petitioners would submit that the petitioners namely Sachin Kumar Soni, Ambika Prasad Ekka, Anup Toppo and Jagmohan Singh Ayam were initially appointed on the post of “Assistant Programmer”, “Accountant”, “Accountant” & “Technical Assistant” vide order dated 03-10-2015, 02-09-2010, 02- 09-2010 & 31-03-2015, respectively under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme on contractual basis in Janpad 6 Panchayat, Balrampur/Ramchandrapur and their services were extended year to year till 27-05-2020. Vide impugned order dated 27- 05-2020, they were terminated from their services. He further submitted that their services are governed under the Rules, 2012. As per provisions of Rules, 2012, in every year, ACR / PAR of petitioners were required to be taken down by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila/Janpad Panchayat, but they have never been communicated about their adverse ACR /PAR, rather they have never been communicated their any of ACR / PAR. It is further contended that petitioner – Sachin Kumar Soni was served with two notices dated 18- 05-2020 & 22-05-2020 (Annexure R-1 coly.) alleging financial irregularities, petitioners – Ambika Prasad and Anup Toppo were served with the notice dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure R-3/1) alleging unauthorized absence without any appropriate reason whereas petitioner – Jagmohan was served with the notice dated 20.4.2020 (Annexure R-1) alleging financial irregularities. Aforesaid notices were replied by the petitioners, in which, they denied allegations levelled against them, but without conducting any enquiry or providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, vide impugned order dated 27-05-2020 (Annexure P-1), their services have been terminated. Whereas, as per Rule 15 (1) of the Niyam, 2012, an employee appointed on contract basis shall be governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965, but without conducting any enquiry & without following the principles of natural justice, services of the petitioners have been terminated, therefore, instants petitions may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order, by which services of the petitioners have been terminated. 7 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 & 4, who are main contesting party in the case, have filed their reply stating inter alia that appointment of the petitioners was contractual appointment and their services are governed by the Rules, 2012. He submits that vide notification dated 31-03-2015, the State Government has amended sub Rule 3 of Rule 15 of Rules 2012, which provides that Confidential Report / P.A.R. (Performance Appraisal Report) of the person, appointed on contract basis, shall be recorded and for extending the period of contractual service, it is mandatory that his/her’s Confidential Report / P.A.R. (Performance Appraisal Report) is assessed as “Excellent” or “Very Good”, in case, he/she is to be considered for further appointment on contract basis. Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4 would further submit that petitioners were issued various notices as their services were not found satisfactory and they committed financial irregularities, they were also not serious about their duties, which were also admitted by petitioner – Sachin Kumar Soni (Annexure R -1 page 13), Anup Toppo (Annexure R-3/1 page 6) and Ambika Prasad Ekka (Annexure R-3/2). They used to remain absent from duty without permission of the authority, despite that, their conduct did not change, therefore, their services have been terminated vide impugned order dated 27-05-2020. Counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4 while referring to their reply would further submit that Annual Confidential Report / Performance Appraisal Report of the petitioners were written by Chief Executive Officer, Zila/Janpad Panchayat every year from 2015, which were being communicated to them in every year. He further submits that when information was sought for from Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat about their confidential report/PAR, under which they were 8 working, it was not found satisfactory, therefore, their services have been terminated. 7. Counsel for the State have extended their support to the submission made by counsel for the respondents No. 3 & 4. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 9. In the instant cases, the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis under “Mahatma Gandhi Rural Guarantee Scheme” in the year 2010/2015 and thereafter, they worked continuously in Janpad Panchayat Balrampur and Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur till 27-5-2020, when vide order (Annexure P-1) dated 27-5-2020 issued by the respondent No. 3, their services have been terminated. Petitioners Sachin Kumar Soni and Jagmohan were served notices alleging financial irregularities, whereas petitioners Ambika Prasad and Anup Toppo were served notice alleging unauthorized absence. As per learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4, petitioners Sachin Kumar Soni (in WPS No. 2792/2020 Annexure R-1 page 13), petitioner Anup Toppo (in WPS No. 2798/2020 in Annexure R-3/1 page 6) and petitioner Ambika Prasad Ekka (in WPS No. 2783/2020 in Annexure R-3/2) have admitted the allegation levelled against them. Therefore, his contention is that due opportunity was given to the petitioners before terminating their service. 10. As regards the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that ACR/PAR of petitioners were not communicated to them. As per Rule 15(3) of the Rules, 2012, contract appointment of the petitioners on 9 the date of termination of service is governed by Rules, 2012. Rule 15 (3) provides for preparation of Confidential Report/Performance Appraisal Report (P.A.R.) of a person appointed in contract to be considered for extending the contract period. Rule 15 (3) is extracted below for ready reference:- “15 [(3) Confidential Report/P.A.R. (Performance Appraisal Report) of the person, appointed on contract basis, shall be recorded and for extending the period of contractual service, it is mandatory that his/her's Confidential Report/P.A.R. (Performance Appraisal Report) is assessed as Excellent or Very Good, in case he/she is to be considered for further appointment on contract basis.]" 11.
Decision
From perusal of the writ petition, the replies submitted by respondents and the documents annexed with the same, it is found that the respondents have not placed on record any document to show that the Annual Confidential Report/Performance Appraisal Report, has ever been communicated to the petitioners. 12. Learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Humendra Kumar Pawade Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. in Writ Appeal No. 813/2018 has observed thus:- "4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are convinced that the order of discontinuation of contract appointment of the appellant deserves to be quashed for the reason that Rule 15 (3) of the Rules, 2012 itself provides that confidential report of the person, appointed on contract, shall be recorded so that his work may be assessed in case he is to be considered for appointment on contract basis for the 10 next year and for such continuation the ACR/PAR should be 'excellent' or 'very good'. Once the Rule itself provides that the ACR or PAR would form the basis for according benefit of extension of contract employment it goes without saying that a contract employee has a right to represent against the ACR which may work adverse to his interest if the same is not of required standard as laid down under Rule 15 (3) of the Rules, 2012. Even if contract employee is not entitled to hold the post, if the Rules itself provide for consideration of ACR or PAR as a measure to assess the suitability, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt (supra) [Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and ors. (2008) 8 SCC 725] would apply with full force for the reason that if an employee is entitled to any benefit out of the ACR or PAR the same has to be communicated without which it cannot be considered against the employee. 5. It is also to bear in mind that the Supreme Court has settled, in 'n' number of cases that when an authority takes a decision which may have civil consequences and affects the rights of a person, the principles of natural justice would at once come into play. (See: State of Maharashtra v Public Concern for Governance Trust and Others (2007) 3 SCC 587)." 13. From the facts of instant case and perusal of Rule 15 of the Rules, 2012 in the light of above referred case law, it is apparent that it was mandatory upon the respondents to take down ACR/PAR of the petitioners and communicate the same to them, which can be considered for evaluation of the services/work done by the petitioners, as to, whether they worth keeping in service or not. In the present cases, the ACR of one of the petitioners (Sachin Kumar Soni) has 11 been filed, but the respondents have not brought anything on record to show that the petitioners were supplied copy of ACRs/PARs. The order of termination of their services is having the civil consequences, more so, when the termination is on the ground of leveling of allegations against the petitioners of financial irregularities and unauthorized absence from service. In such situation, impugned order suffers from perversity and illegality. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court as discussed above, in the opinion of this Court, Respondent No. 3 and 4 have committed error in terminating the service of the petitioners for the reasons discussed above and therefore, the order dated 27-5- 2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 3/Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) is quashed / set aside. However, Respondent No. 3 & 4 are at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law and further to take decision for continuation of services of petitioners. 15. With the aforementioned observations and directions, writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit/Pathak/-