Balod, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur
Case Details
SMT NIRMALA RAO 1 2025:CGHC:41420 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6651 of 2021 1 - Nutan Bhensle D/o Vishnu Lal Bhensle, Aged About 28 Years Technical Assistant, Jila Panchayat District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ceo Jila Panchayat District Balod (Chhattisgarh), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ceo Janpad Panchayat District Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 4 - Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Jungera Village Jungera, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner For Respondent/ State For Respondents No.2 & 3
Legal Reasoning
“8. It is well-established position that the 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”. Such reference may inevitably affect the future prospects of the incumbent and if so, the order must be construed as exfacie stigmatic order of termination. A threeJudge Bench of this Court in Indra Pal Gupta vs. Managing Committee, Model Inter College, Thora1 had occasion to deal with somewhat similar situation. In that case, the order of termination referred to the decision of the Managing Committee and subsequent approval by the competent authority as the basis for termination. The resolution of the Managing Committee in turn referred to a report of the Manager which indicated serious issues and that was made the basis for the decision by the Committee to terminate probation of the employee concerned. Relying on the aforementioned decision, the Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & Ors.2, observed as follows: “32. The next question is whether the reference in the impugned order to the three earlier letters amounts to a stigma if those three letters contained anything in the nature of a stigma even though the order of termination itself did not contain anything offensive.” 4. In the matter of Chandan Prasad Sah vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 1625 of 2025, it has been held that though the employee was a contractual employee, he was entitled to the opportunity of hearing and the authorities were under an obligation to conduct an enquiry. Para 7 is reproduced herein below:- “7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the parties and further considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter as also, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swati Priyadarshini (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure P/4) has not been passed in accordance with law. The petitioner, even though he is a contractual employee is required to be given an opportunity of hearing and the respondent authorities are under an obligation to conduct an enquiry if prima facie, they find any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, which in the present 4 case was not done. As such, the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure P/4) is liable to be and accordingly, quashed. However, the respondent authorities will be at liberty to initiate any proceedings as available under the law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.” 5. In the matter of Yaad Das Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 8212 of 2023, it is held that Article 311 of the Constitution of India must be complied with while terminating the services of a government servant. 6. In the matter of Pankaj Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, decided by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in W.P. No. 17879 of 2023, it was held that the orders with regard to termination of the services were passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice; therefore, those orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Para 10 is reproduced herein below:- “10. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned orders dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure P/13) and 03.07.2023 (Annexure P/14) are issued in violation of principles of natural justice and as such, they are not sustainable and are hereby set aside. Although, liberty is granted to the respondents if so required, they can conduct a fresh enquiry by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then take a fresh decision in accordance with law. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case when after 31.03.2023 petitioner was allowed to continue and it could be considered that his contract was extended, the petitioner should be reinstated in service and enquiry, if so required, could be completed within a period of three months from the date of initiation of the same. Since the petitioner is a contract employee, therefore, this Court does not deem it fit to pass any order of back wages. However, the services which have not been rendered by the petitioner when he remained out from service, he cannot claim any wagna for the said period. However, it is directed that this order be implemented within a period of 30 days from submitting copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to claim wages accordingly.” 7. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would oppose 5 the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 8.11.2021, wherein it was specifically stated that without prior approval of respondents No. 2 & 3, the petitioner changed the direction of the road. They would contend that a committee was constituted and an enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the law, and the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity. They would also submit that the Committee found the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Rojgar Sahayak, and the petitioner guilty of the commission of irregularities. They would also contend that the provisions of the law have already been complied with and the principles of natural justice were duly followed; therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 9. In the matter of Dr. Vijayakumaran (supra), it is held that where the order is stigmatic, an enquiry should be conducted. 10. In the present case, the services of the petitioner were terminated after due enquiry, which was conducted by an Enquiry Committee. The enquiry report would reveal that the petitioner, as well as the other responsible persons, were afforded sufficient opportunity, and their statements were also recorded by the Enquiry Committee. It is also apparent that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before the final decision. 6 11. Admittedly, the petitioner was a contractual employee and was appointed in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Rules of 2012. 12. The law laid down in the matter of Chandan Prasad Sah (supra) would not help the petitioner, as an enquiry was conducted by a committee constituted by the Collector and sufficient opportunity was afforded. The provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India would not apply as the petitioner was not a government servant. Similarly, the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh rendered in the matter of Pankaj Sharma (supra) would not help the petitioner, since after the issuance of the show-cause notice, sufficient opportunity was provided, and thereafter, the impugned order was passed. 13. The petitioner could not establish the fact that she was not part of the decision making process whereby the direction of an under construction road was changed; rather, she has tried to justify her conduct. The petitioner has not challenged the enquiry report and its findings in this petition. 14. Considering the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Nimmi SD/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
Arguments
Shri T.K. Jha, Advocate. Shri Shubham Bajpayee, P.L. Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate. : : : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to this case. 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set aside the termination order dated 15.11.2021 ΑΝΝEXURE P/6 interest of justice. 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Technical Assistant on a contract basis under respondent No.3 vide order dated 4.12.2015 for a period of one year. He would contend that the services of the petitioner were extended from time to time. He would further submit that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zila Panchayat, Balod, issued a show-cause notice dated 14.7.2021 to the petitioner, making an allegation that during the inspection of the Central Team, it was found that a direction of the under-construction road was changed without the prior approval of the Superior Authorities. He would also submit that the petitioner filed a reply to the show-cause notice wherein it was stated that the direction of the road was changed pursuant to the resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat dated 29.1.2021 and 13.3.2021. He would further contend that, though an enquiry was conducted by respondent No. 2, the petitioner was not afforded the proper opportunity of hearing. He would also contend that on account of irregularities, the services of the petitioner have been discontinued, and thus, the order is stigmatic and punitive; therefore, a full-fledged enquiry ought to have been conducted by the authorities concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Vijayakumaran CPV vs. Central University of Kerala and Others, (2020) 12 SCC 426, wherein it is held that if the order of termination of 3 the service of a probationer is stigmatic, he should be afforded an opportunity of hearing. Para 8 is reproduced herein below