Dhananjay Prasad Kaushik v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue

:- Mr. Anup Majumdar & Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocates For State :- Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board

13.08.2025

The petitioners, engaged as a Data Entry Operator in the Labour Office, Kabirdham through “Call Me” Service Provider for the Chhattisgarh Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, are aggrieved by the impugned memorandum dated

28.04.2023 issued on the basis of a complaint by one contractor, which has since been withdrawn. The petitioners are not government employee but personnel deployed by the service provider, and no liability arises towards the complainant. The impugned memorandum, concerning termination of services, was issued ex parte, without supplying the charges or affording an opportunity of hearing, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioners.

Since the petitioners have filed these two petitions while raising a common grievance. Therefore, these petitions are being clubbed together, heard together, and decided together by this common order.

The reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in both the writ petitions are same and one with certain variations, however, in order to 4 adjudicate these petitions, WPS No. 3364 of 2023 (Dhananjay Prasad Kaushik vs. State of Chhattisgarh) has been taken as lead petition for deciding the issues involved in these cases.

The petitioners have prayed for following reliefs in the petition:- “10.1. That, the Respondents may kindly be directed by the Hon'ble Court to set aside and quash the impugned memorandum dated

28.04.2023, allow the petitioner to render his services as Data Entry Operator, District Labour Office, Kabirdham.10.2.That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deemed just and fit in facts and circumstances of the case.

10.2 That, any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deemed just and fit in facts and circumstances of the case.

10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly quash and set aside the discontinuation order dated

23.05.2023, the petitioner may kindly be allowed to continue in services, in the interest of justice.

10.4. That, the imputation of charges of corruption against the petitioner, may kindly be set aside by the Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice.”

Facts of the cases are that the petitioners are engaged as a Data Entry Operator in the Labour Office, Kabirdham, through “Call Me” Service Provider for the Chhattisgarh Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, with salary paid by the service provider and without the status of a Government servant. 5 On 28.02.2023, a contractor, Shri Braj Bhushan Gupta, lodged a general complaint regarding non-preparation of a licence, containing no specific allegation against the petitioners, which he withdrew on 02.03.2023. Despite this, the respondents, who are not the petitioners’ immediate superior authority, issued an ex parte termination memorandum and, without supplying charges or affording an opportunity of hearing, passed an order dated

23.05.2023 discontinuing the petitioners’ services, which is alleged to be without jurisdiction, biased, and mala fide. Hence these petitions.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are seeking the indulgence of this Court on the ground that they were engaged on a contractual basis through a placement agency. However, the State Government issued a letter to the placement agency for discontinuation of their services, alleging that employees engaged through placement agencies were not performing their duties properly, and certain specific allegations were also levelled against the petitioners. It is submitted that the said order is stigmatic in nature, and therefore, could not have been passed without conducting a proper enquiry in accordance with law. He places reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139 decided on 22/08/2024 in which the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is to the fact that even if in contractual 6 appointment, if any stigmatic order is to be passed, it is to be passed after holding proper enquiry and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned delinquent/employee.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petition itself is not maintainable. It is contended that the services of the petitioners were provided through a placement agency, pursuant to an agreement executed between the placement agency and the concerned authority, i.e., the Magistrate. As such, the petitioners do not hold any direct contractual relationship with the State, and therefore, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against the State in the present case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioners were engaged through a placement agency, and under a contractual arrangement, their services were provided to the State Government by the said agency. The impugned order dated

23.05.2023 was issued by the placement agency, whereby, while making certain allegations against the petitioners, their services were returned to the agency. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Swati (Supra), which, however, is distinguishable on facts. In the Swati (Supra) case, the contractual appointment was made directly by 7 the State Government. In the present case, the services of the petitioners were availed through a placement agency, and the contract was executed between the State Government and the said agency. Therefore, it cannot be held that the State Government was under any obligation to conduct an enquiry before taking action, particularly when no direct order was passed against the petitioners. The services of the petitioners were simply returned to the placement agency, from whom they had been initially deputed.

Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the petition to warrant an order for reinstatement of the petitioners' services, or to direct the respondent authorities to conduct an enquiry against the petitioners prior to taking such action.