Partly allowed

Surendra v. the Collector, Sarguja and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Feb 2012WP/337/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge oral order where the writ petitioners, employees of SECL, challenged an order directing termination of services. The Court observed the Collector lacked jurisdiction to direct termination of SECL employees without a departmental enquiry and directed the employer not to proceed to terminate services without first constituting an inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Released and Directed respondent SECL not to proceed to terminate services without holding a proper departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

Surendra Vs the Collector, Sarguja and Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR,
Writ Petition NOo 337 /96»

¶2

PETITIONERS. lo Surendra s/o< Hajarl. aged about
35 years^ General Mazdoor,
Category-I^ Bhatgaon Colliery
SECL^ R/o< Vlllage- Bhatgaon,
Distt- Sarguja^ MP^
,3)A/M fits f^'v' /^2« Agar Sai S/o. Bir Sai aged
^-^
about 40 years, Geaeral Mazdoor»|
CffuMr ^ -A^r d^<br>Category-l, Bhatgaon Colllery^
?-^ t-1'^fr^ SECL, R/o. Village- Bhatgaon,
,©istt- Sarguja, MP«
^[^i' K^ -Versus-
RESPONDENTS, 1» The Colleetor, Sarguja, Distt-
Sargujs, Ambikaptir.MP,
2<, The South Eastern Coal Fields
Limited, through General Manager^
^d Copy cf Petttlon With
Bishrarapur Area, AT &PO-Bishrara-
pur, Teh- Sarajpur Distt-Sarguja
^•5 o.»s €K--.^ s-'-a-'y 3»
" The Sub-Area Manager^ Bhatgaon
1

¶3

The South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, through General Manager^ Bishrarapur Area, AT &PO-Bishrarapur, Teh- Sarajpur Distt-Sarguja

¶4

The Sub-Area Manager^ Bhatgaon Sub Area, SECL, PO-Bhatgaon Colliery, Distt- Sarguja.MP·

¶5

iflRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF iNBia.

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

Writ Petition No.337 of 1996

PETiTEONER:

Surendra

-Versus-

RESPONDENTS:

The Collector, Sarguja, District Sarguja and others

¶13

Present

¶14

Shri R. Pandey, counsej forthe petitioner. Shri Ajit Slngh, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1. Shri A.K. Shukta, counsel for the inter'v'ener.

¶15

Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

(2-2-2012)

¶18

Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that petitioner No.2 Agar Sai has dled during the pendency of this writ petitton.

¶19

2 Learned counsel for the petltioner is permitted to delete the name of petitioner No.2 from the array of partjes during the course of the day.

¶20

3 In this writ petjtion, the petitioner has claimed the foflowing rdiefs:"(1) That the respondents be restrained to terminate the services of the petitioners.

¶21

(2) That the respondent No. 2 & 3 be directed to Ignore the impugned order dt. 28.11.95 passed by the Colfector. (Respondent No.1).

¶22

(3) That the department be directed not to proceed with the departmental enquiry atleast tili the tenure of present Coilector.

¶23

(4) That the impugned order dt. 28.11.95 (Annexure A-

¶24

3} passed by fhe Coliector be quashed."

¶25

The writ petition was filed on 24-1-1996 and the reiief clause No,7 (3) is regarding issuance of directlon to the respondent department not to proceed wjth the departmenta! enquiry at least tiil the tenure of present Collector, which is bythe iapse oftlme has become infructuous,

¶26

With regard to chailenge to Annexure-A/3, it has been argued that the petltjoner js an employee of SECL, therefore, the Coliector, Sarguja has

¶27

1 no jurlsdiction to direct the SECL to terminate the sen/ices of the petitioner. He would submit that the services of the petltioner can be

¶28

"%^

¶29

¶30

terminated only after hoiding enquiry and when charges are proved against hlm. He wouid submit that no opportunity of hearing has been given by the Coliector before passing the order Annexure-A/3.

¶31

Learned counseE appearing for respondent No.1 as well as iearned counse! for the intervener do not dispute this legai position that the petitioner is an empioyee of SECL, therefore, the concerned Collector had no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner's empioyer to termlnate hls ser\ifices.

¶32

Bar^e

¶33

7 !n vievv of the above; this writ petltion is disposed of with a directlon to the respondent SECL not to proceed to terminate the services of the petitioner without holding a property constituted enquiry against the petitioner. If the respondent SECL deslres, it may constitute an enqulry against the petitioner with respect to the charges mentioned in the order of CoJlector (Annexure-A/3) and thereafter actlon may be taken, if needed, Irs accordance with !aw, after givlng proper opportunlty of hearing to the petltloner.

¶34

Sd/Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

Surendra v. the Collector, Sarguja and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra v. the Collector, Sarguja and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asim Roy and Ors. Vs the State of M.P. and Ors.

Jeevesh Chaubey Vs Indira Gandhi K.V.V. Raipur and Ors.

Awadh Bihari Singh and 44 Others Vs Central Provident Fund Comm. and Ors.

Smt. Kanhan Bai Vs State and Ors.

Ku. Ajanta Das Vs Smt. Ritu Sen and Anr.

Dr.Paras Ram Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.