Allowed

Yadav Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jan 2016WA/627/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the appellant's writ appeal relying on its earlier decision in Writ Appeal No. 599 of 2015. The court held that the discharge order was punitive and stigmatic, setting aside the impugned order without prejudice to the respondent's right to a fresh inquiry.

What did the court decide?

The present appeal is allowed without prejudice to the rights of the Respondents afresh in accordance with law.

Yadav Dewangan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WRIT APPEAL NO. 627 OF 2015

¶5

Yadav Dewangan, S/o Shri Komal Prasad Dewangan, aged about 35 years, R/o C/o Dinesh Kirana Store, Purana Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara, Thana Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶6

… Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Labour, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

The Director, Employee State Insurance Services, D-290/2005, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

The Insurance Medical Officer, Employee State Insurance Services, Mandirhasaud, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Dy. Advocate General.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

Per NAVIN SINHA, C.J.

¶16

13/01/2016

¶17

1. The present appeal arise from common order dated 28.9.2015 dismissing Writ Petition (S) No. 6472 of 2014 and analogous cases [including Writ Petition (S) No. 6472 of 2014 by the present Appellant] declining to interfere with the order discharging the Appellant who was a probationer.

¶18

2. I.A. No. 1 of 2015 has been filed to condone delay of 8 days in filing the appeal. Considering the duration, delay is condoned.

¶19

3. The questions of law involved for consideration have already been considered in detail by us in Writ Appeal No. 599 of 2015 disposed on 15.12.2015 holding that the initial enquiry was ex-parte in nature. The order of discharge treating persons like the Appellant as probationer was found to be punitive and stigmatic in nature after lifting

¶20

-2-

¶21

the veil, and that the final order was at complete variance with the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice because of which the impugned order of removal dated 19.11.2014 couched in innocuous language was set aside but without prejudice to the rights of the Respondents afresh in accordance with law.

¶22

4. For like reasons as discussed in Writ Appeal No. 599 of 2015, the present appeal is also allowed but without prejudice to the rights of the Respondents afresh in accordance with law.

¶23

Sd/- Sd/-

¶24

(Navin Sinha) (P. Sam Koshy) Chief Justice Judge

¶25

/sharad/ Chief Justice

Yadav Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadav Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Mohanlal Jain Vs Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh Maryadit

Abhay Singh Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Unis John Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh Gramoudyog Garment and Leather Works Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Bodhiram Bhunjiya @ Bodhi Singh

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/s Amar Builders