Allowed

Shadab Khan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2016WA/686/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the appellant's writ appeal, relying on a previous decision regarding an ex parte enquiry. The discharge order was set aside as it was considered punitive and stigmatic, without prejudice to the respondent's right to take fresh action.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of removal dated 19.11.2014 set aside without prejudice to the rights of the Respondents to act afresh.

Shadab Khan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Writ Appeal No.686 of 2015

¶4

Shadab Khan, son of Late Anwar Ahmed Khan, aged about 35 years, R/o Quarter No.1-15, Penshanbada, Police Line, Thana City Kotwali,Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---Appellant

¶6

versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Labour, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

The Director, Employee State Insurances Services, D – 290/5, Taigore Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

The Directorate, Employee State Insurance Services, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Appellant : Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate

¶12

For State/Respondents : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Deputy 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, Chief Justice

¶16

5/1/2016

¶17

1 . 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.6473 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 33 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 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.

¶20

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

Subbu

Shadab Khan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shadab Khan 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

Vikas Dubey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

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

Bramhanand Rathiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Bhadoo Yadav

Swatantra Ratna Panigrahi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kailash Kurre @ Kailash Prasad Kurre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh