Bhojendra Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:5947-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 25 of 2025 Bhojendra Kumar Sahu S/o Gopal Ram Aged About 30 Years (Now Aged About 34 Years) R/o Gram Kosagondi, Tehsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) At Present Posted And Working At Adiwasi Ashram Hitapathar, District Balod (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Department of Tribal And Schedule Caste, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner Department of Tribal and Schedule Caste , 3. 4. Balod Chhattisgarh, District Balod (C.G.) Collector, Balod District Balod (C.G.) Superintendent, The Adivasi Boys Hostel Arkaar, Block Development, Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District Balod (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.02.03 18:10:21 +0530 For Appellant For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Baldau Prasad Banjare, Advocate. Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03 .02.2025 1. Heard Baldau Prasad Banjare, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State on I.A. No. 1, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufÏcient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 is allowed and delay of 93 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2687 of 2021 (Bhojendra Kumar Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has partly
Decision
allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.06.2013, applications for recruitment on the post of ‘Peon’ were invited vide advertisement (Annexure P/2 in the writ petition) for which the appellant and other eligible candidates had duly applied. After completion of requisite process, the list of selected candidates (Annexure P/3 in the writ petition) 3 was published on 24.05.2014 in which appellant’s name found place at Sl.No. 17. On 30.06.2014, the appellant joined his service under respondent No. 4 – Superintendent of Adivasi Boys Hostel, Arkaar, Block Development Gurur, District Balod vide Annexure P/4 (in the writ petition). In July – August, 2020, however, a dispute had arisen between the appellant and one of the villagers for which a report was lodged against him at Special Police Station, Balod leading to registration of offence followed by arrest and subsequently he was bailed out. Suddenly on 23.10.2020 vide Annexure P/1 (in the writ petition) an order was passed and handed over to the appellant pertaining to his dismissal from service with immediate effect. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2020 appellant preferred a writ petition bearing WPS No. 2687 of 2021 and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.08.2024 directe the authority concerned to reinstate the appellant in service, but there would no back wages for the period he remained out of work. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 06.08.2204 passed by the learned Single Judge is arbitrary, illegal and against the law as learned Single Judge failed to consider that the appellant was appointed in the post of Class-IV employee against the salary fixed by the Collector with terms and condition that after 03 years of service, the status of the appellant would be that of a member of the temporary employee in the service, thereafter, after completion of 10 years, he would become a member of permanent service. Thus, after completion of 03 years, the appellant had obtained the status of temporary employee, further he has completed 06 years of service. So, he is entitled to be protected under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 4 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that the order of termination has been passed regarding the dismissal of the appellant from service in which an allegation has been made which is stigmatic in nature and in the mode of punishment, so the regular enquiry was compulsory in the compliance of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is untenable in the eyes of law. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 9. While passing the impugned order learned Single Judge held that first contention of the counsel for the appellant is that condition No. 7 of the appointment order has not been taken care of. He submits that Annexure R/3 (in the writ petition) is the notice dated 20.10.2020 issued by respondent No. 2 to the appellant asking him for an explanation which indicates that the appellant remained absent from 01.08.2020 to 31.10.2020 without any application and that he was arrested in connection with a criminal case and sent to judicial custody. Annexure R/4 (in the writ petition) is the application of the appellant seeking leave on medical ground from 01.08.2020 till his complete recovery. The said application was also received by respondent No. 4. So the first reason 5 assigned to issuance of termination order i.e. the absence without intimation or application appears to be without any substance, and therefore, is not sustainable in law. Whether this application for leave on medical ground of the appellant was accepted or rejected is not reflected from the record, but the fact remains that the appellant apprised the concerned authority as to his ailment in the application for leave (Annexure R/4 in the writ petition) on medical ground. The second ground raised by the respondents about appellant being sent to judicial custody in a criminal case in the changed circumstances does not survive because the document of Annexure R/6 (in the writ petition) which is the judgment dated 31.05.2024 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, Balod, goes to show that the appellant has been acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. From the overall record, it is manifest that it is the respondents/authority which has not stood by the condition No. 7 of the appointment order which needs to be kept in view in case of putting an end to the service of its employee and thus the order of termination is not in accordance with law. 10. In view of the above, learned Single Judge further held that putting an end to the services of the appellant is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. Hence, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant with a direction to the authority concerned to reinstate the appellant in service, but there would no back wages for the period he remained out of work. 11. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while partly 6 allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan