Disposed

Krantilal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC19 Apr 2023WPS/4336/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the termination of a contractual employee. The Court held that while natural justice was violated by not sharing the enquiry report, no reinstatement could be granted as the contract had expired. The Court directed the respondents to share the collected material for rebuttal before re-examining the case for continued service.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to supply the documents/material collected during the fact-finding enquiry to the petitioner for rebuttal before re-examining the case.

Krantilal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPS No. 4336 of 2011

¶4

Krantilal Sahu s/o. Gorelal Sahu, aged about 49 years, R/o. Ward No.2. Phool Jhariya Para, Sarangarh, Distg. Raigarh. ---- Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, School Education Department/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, DKS Bhawsan, Raipur, Dist. Raipur CG.

¶7

Mission Direcrtor, State Project Office, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Chhatisgvarh Raipur, District Raipur (CG).

¶8

Collector & District Mission Director, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyn), Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG).

¶9

District Project Co-ordinator, Rajev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Sarva Shiksha Abnhiyan, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). ---- Respondents

¶10

For petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, AAG

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas. Order on Board

¶12

(19-04-2023)

¶13

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition assailing the order dated 2-7-2011 by which the petitioner's contractual appointment on the post of Block Resource Central Co-ordinator posted at Block Sarangarh, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raigarh District Raigarh has been terminated after giving one month salary as per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Contract Services Rules 2004.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on 24-9-1996 (Annexure P/4) on the post of Block Source Center Coordinator on contractual basis for one year in the pay scale of Rs.1640/-to Rs. 2900/- which was extended from time to time upto 2010. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 17-08-2009 (Annexure P/8) and 30.11.2010 (Annexure P/9) were issued to the petitioner wherein it has been mentioned that an enquiry conducted against the petitioner for certain financial irregularities and the allegations levelled against him were found proved. It has also been mentioned in the show cause notice that the act and omission done by the petitioner is mis-conduct under

¶15

¶16

Conduct Rules, therefore, he was directed to submit reply to the show case notice.

¶17

It has also been submitted that the petitioner has submitted reply to the show cause notice on 06.12.2010 wherein he has denied the allegations and has stated that once the enquiry has been conducted by the respondent, then he should have been given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry. Copy of the enquiry report should have also been supplied to him whereas in the proceedings there is total noncompliance of principle of fair play and natural justice, as such prayed for withdrawal of show cause notice.

¶18

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner was a contractual employee and as per Rules of 2012 no enquiry is required to be conducted even otherwise, it is a finding of fact enquiry wherein the allegations levelled against the petitioner were found proved, therefore, he prays for rejection of the writ petition.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

It is not in dispute that some enquiry has been conducted behind the back of the petitioner, therefore, right of the petitioner to get copy of the enquiry report and to participate in the proceeding is being infringed which is violation of principle of natural justice.

¶21

Considering the fact that the respondents could have discontinued the service of the petitioner even without considering the material collected in the fact finding enquiry in terms of the Rules 2004 by giving one months salary. But the services of the petitioner was discontinued on the basis of certain allegations and material collected in the fact finding enqiury then it was incumbent upon the respondent to supply the same which they have miserable failed to do so. Further considering the fact that the petitioner was contractual employee and contract period is over, as such no direction for reinstatement of petitioner can be passed but considering the fact that if the

¶22

¶23

respondent intends to continue with the services of the petitioner and the allegations levelled against him is a rider for consideration it is directed that they should supply the document/ material to the petitioner which they have collected during fact finding enquiry to rebut the said allegation and thereafter the respondent shall reexamine the case whether petitioner deserves to be continued in the contractual service or not.

¶24

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

Sd/( Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE

¶26

Raju

Krantilal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krantilal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh 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

Anwar Haque Vs Sheikh Rasool and Another

Mrigendra Singh Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited

Lokeshwar Thethwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company Vs Smt. Godawari Bai

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company, Vs Smt. Ganeshiya Bai

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company Vs Shri Pawan Kumar