Allowed

Smt. Shweta Methews v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jan 2016WA/670/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Appeal No. 670 of 2015, the High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the appeal by following the reasoning in Writ Appeal No.599 of 2015, setting aside orders discharging a probationer who faced quasi-punitive proceedings, remitting the matter to the authorities to decide afresh in accordance with law after proper enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of discharge set aside; matter remanded to respondents to deal with the appellant afresh in accordance with law.

Smt. Shweta Methews Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Appeal No. 670 of 2015

¶5

Smt. Shweta Methews, W/o Shri Satish Kumar Bakhla Aged About 36 Years (Wrongly Mention As Barwala), By Occupation Service ( Presently Terminated), R/o Jute Mill Kabir Chowk Police Station Jute Mill, Bima Colony, Distt Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Labour, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office & Police Station Naya Raipur Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

Director, Employees State Insurance Service, Directorate, D / 290- 5, Tagore Nagar, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

The Superintendent, E S I Hospital, Distt. Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

------Respondents

¶12

For Appellant: Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondents: Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Deputy Advocate General.

¶13

Hon'ble The Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

Per Navin Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

4/1/2016

¶17

The present appeal arises from common order dated 28.9.2015 dismissing Writ Petition (S) No.204 of 2015 and analogous cases (including Writ Petition (S) No.254 of 2015 by the present Appellant) declining to interfere with the oder discharging the Appellant who was a probationer.

¶18

IA No.1 of 2015 has been filed to condone delay of 2 days in filing the

¶19

appeal. Considering the duration, delay is condoned.

¶20

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 the veil, and that the final order

¶21

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Sd/Sd/(Navin Sinha) (P. Sam Koshy) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

¶25

Priya

Smt. Shweta Methews v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shweta Methews 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

Mahendra Kumar Salam Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Jitendra Kumar Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Priyanka Krishna Dutta Vs Union Of India and Ors.

Vikas Dubey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Bashan Bai And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Bramhanand Rathiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh