State appealed an observation that a termination order referencing misconduct without enquiry should not bar future employment. High Court held the stigma was neutralized, leaving future appointments to the State's discretion.
Appeal dismissed; observation on stigma neutralized; future appointment consideration left to authorities' discretion.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 135 of 2020
---- Appellants
Versus
---- Respondents
For Appellant/State : Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent : Shri Pranjal Shukla, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice
04.02.2020
2
judgment, though no positive relief has been given to the writ Petitioner, but for granting the liberty to approach the Appellant for further contractual appointments, if at all any.
3
part of the Respondent/writ Petitioner and admittedly since no opportunity of hearing was given to him in this regard, it may still remain as a stigma and hence the matter was disposed off in the following terms as given paragraphs 6 and 7:
“6. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, since the contract period of the petitioner has already lapsed, the only direction which this court can grant at this juncture is that the authorities concerned should not treat the said impugned order as a disqualification to the petitioner for any future employment in which the petitioner participate. Further, since the same has been issued without any sort of preliminary investigation or enquiry, the same should also not be treated as an order of termination of service so far as the petitioner's contractual appointment is concerned.
to move this Court only because of mis-conception of facts which led to the observation/direction as given in paragraphs 6 and 7. The case of the writ Petitioner that he was never given any opportunity of hearing is not correct. Notices were issued at different points of time and on one instance, he was given 'warning' as well. It was thereafter, that the service was put to an end to, after giving one months' notice, as there was no other alternative. This Court does not find it necessary to go into the merit as to the imputation levelled against the writ Petitioner/Respondent. This is more so, since there cannot be any relief by way of reinstatement; which even otherwise stands rejected by the learned Single Judge. No right is conferred upon the contract employee to continue in service, once the tenure is over.
4
finding of guilt was arrived at by conducting any enquiry. Hence the contents of the notice, need not and can't continue as a hurdle, casting a stigma with regard to the career of the Respondent herein.
Sd/Sd/- (P. R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a reference to indiscipline without a conduct enquiry in a termination order of a contract employee casts a stigma affecting future employment.
Whether the State can be compelled to consider a respondent for future contractual appointments after dismissal of appeals.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Chhattisgarh
Kulchander Ekka
P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
