High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a termination challenge. Petitioner claimed illegal dismissal due to pregnancy but admitted negligence without prior leave. Court held no cause for reinstatement.
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 Petition (S) No. 5380 of 2017
Smt. Pratima Sidar, W/o Khemraj Jagat, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Raikera, Tahsil & P.S. Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Ms. Meena Shastri, Addl. Adv. General For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order On Board
04-08-2023
2
seeking following reliefs:-
10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the petitioner case for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
10.2 That the Honb’le Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 14/01/2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 4 i.e. Block Medical Officer, Gharghoda, District Raigarh.
10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to cancel the appointment of respondent No. 6 and reinstate the service of petitioner.
10.4 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon’ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.
3
mistake by not providing necessary information and she unauthorisedly absent from her duty on various occasions also, due to her such negligency in her duty, show-cause notice (Annexure P-3) was issued to her. It is further contended that in pursuance of that show-cause notice (Anneuxre P-3), explanation (Annexure P-4) dated 13.12.2014 was filed by the petitioner, in which, she herself has admitted her negligency and various discrepancies in work. It is further contended that due to such negligency and indiscipline of petitioner with regard to her duty, concerned programme was affected adversely. Further she has neither stated in her explanation (Annexure P-4) that she was pregnant nor have sought any leave in this regard. It is also contended that the petitioner was removed from service after providing her proper opportunity of hearing and after her removal, respondent No. 6 has been appointed in her place, who is working since then. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in the instant petition.
4
unable to perform her duties, then she would have filed application for medical leave or other leave, but no such document has been filed by the petitioner. It is also noteworthy to mention here that after removal of petitioner, respondent No. 6 has been appointed in her place, who is said to be working, therefore, when petitioner herself was not serious with regard to her duty and had caused various negligecy and, therefore, her services was terminated and respondent No. 6 was appointed since then . Hence, in view of above fact situated of the case, I do not find any good ground to allow this petition.
Amit/-
5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a block coordinator can be terminated for negligence, absence, and indiscipline despite a pregnancy ground raised post-facto.
Whether the petitioner entitled to reinstatement when her own explanation admitted negligence and lacked leave application.
Whether a writ petition challenging termination on grounds of indiscility is maintainable when show cause procedure was followed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Pratima Sidar
State of Chhattisgarh
Rambha Gupta
N.K. Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
