Sanjay Kumar Chopde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

2024:CGHC:46662

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1084 of 2018

¶6

1 - Sanjay Kumar Chopde S/o Ramnath Chopde, Aged About 29 Years Caste Gavli, R/o Village Banjari, P.S. Ambagarh Chowki, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.,

¶9

2 - The Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶10

4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mohla, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶11

5 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mohla, District Rajnandgaon Chhttisgarh...........(Caveator)

¶12

6 - Gram Panchayat, Vasadi, Through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Vasadi, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents

¶13

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶14

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :- Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State :- Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.5 :- Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board

¶15

27.11.2024

¶16

1. The instant petition is filed against the impugned dismissal order

¶17

2 / 6

¶18

dated 15.01.2018, wherein the petitioner has been dismissed from the job / post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, on the allegation that he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1,67,501/- while preparing a fabricated muster roll.

¶19

2. The following reliefs have been sought by the petitioner in the following petition:-

¶20

“(i)That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned dismissal of petitioner from the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak dated 15.01.2018.

¶21

(ii)That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to reinstate the petitioner from the said post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak.

¶22

(iii)Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.

¶23

(iv)Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also, kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.”

¶24

3. Mr. Punit Ruparel, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the contract basis for one year with monthly wage of Rs.2,000/-. Thereafter, all of a sudden, he has been dismissed from the job / post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak vide order dated 15.01.2018 on the allegation that he misappropriated sum of Rs. 1,67,501/- by preparing a fabricated muster roll. It is submitted that the petitioner was earlier issued a show cause notice dated 08.01.2018, wherein only 24 hours time is given to file reply of the said show cause notice. Thereafter, the

¶25

3 / 6

¶26

petitioner filed reply of the said show cause notice on 10.01.2018, wherein he explained that he has not misappropriated a single penny of the muster roll of the employee and also showed expenditure of the sanctioned amount. But without considering the said reply, the petitioner was dismissed from the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, without giving any further opportunity of hearing, therefore, the order is bad in law and requires to be set-aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶27

4. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned State counsel submits that before passing of the said impugned order, the petitioner has been duly served with notice after that he has been removed from his services because according to his appointment order dated 09.09.2008, the petitioner was appointed on contract basis. He submits that vide condition No. 1 and vide condition No. 9, it reflects that during the period of contract, either side of the party may send notice of one month and by that notice or payment of one month salary, the services of the petitioner can be terminated. It is submitted that though the petitioner has made several grounds which are not applicable in this case as the petitioner has relied upon Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 [hereinafter to be referred as Rules 1999], which is not at all applicable in this case and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

5. Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the petitioner has been dismissed from service after

¶29

4 / 6

¶30

following the period of notice as he was a contractual employee and there is no any infirmity in passing of the said impugned order. It is further submitted that upon due notice and due enquiry, the petitioner has been removed from service. Along with notice the enquiry report has also been sent to the petitioner, however the petitioner was failed to satisfy the respondent authorities through his reply, as such, the impugned order has rightly been passed and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶31

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the impugned order carefully.

¶32

7. From perusal of the record, it is an admitted fact that the service of the petitioner was contractual basis vide his appointment order dated 09.09.2008 in which vide condition no. 9, it has been specifically mentioned that any of the party can leave service or removed from service upon service of notice before one month or on payment of one month salary.

¶33

8. In the present case, when some complaints were made against the petitioner and enquiry was conducted and on the basis of finding of the enquiry, the petitioner was given notice and after due notice, he was removed from service, as such, there is no any infirmity in the order passed by the respondent No.5.

¶34

9. So far as the applicability of the Rule 7 of Rules 1999 is concerned, this is not at all applicable in the case of the petitioner, as such, on this ground this petition cannot be allowed. Since a stigmatic order has been passed against the petitioner which is in

¶35

5 / 6

¶36

my considered opinion is not in accordance with law. In this respect, I am fortified with judgment passed in the matter of Mahesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another reported in AIR 1958 SC 36. The relevant paras 14, 16 & 17 is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶37

“14. The twin tests suggested to determine the nature of the order, if it is stigmatic or not is, if the temporary government servant had a right to the post or rank, and, secondly, if he has been visited with 'civil consequences', in the words of their Lordships. It has been held that if either of the two conditions exists, the order of termination relating to a temporary government servant must be held penal in nature. It has also been clarified that termination of services of a temporary government servant in accordance with the terms and conditions of service do not entail civil consequences, as held by the Constitution Bench in case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India , AIR 1958 SC 36.

¶38

If then that is the case, the petitioner's rights are governed exclusively by a contract that does not have any statutory flavour. It is a purely contractual appointment accepted by the petitioner dehors the rules and without a lien on any post. The issue whether the termination is in accordance with the contract or contrary to it in the absence of violation of any statute or statutory rules, or at least a statutory contract, is not fit to be determined by this Court in the exercise of our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶39

6 / 6

¶40

The dispute between the petitioner and the Nagar Palika arises out of a contract of service simpliciter, which cannot be determined in the present proceedings. The determination of the petitioner's employment in terms of the contract of service or in violation thereof, given the terms of the contract and its nature, does not involve any arbitrariness, as may make it fall foul of the petitioner's right under Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution.”

¶41

10. Reverting to the present case, the petitioner was appointed as Rojgar Sahayak on contractual basis on a meagre remuneration of Rs.2,000/- per month. Though he was appointed on contractual basis but since before the enquiry and before passing of stigmatic order, he was not heard, the stigma would not be proper for his future employment.

¶42

11. In view of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the opinion that the stigma passed against the petitioner is not at all in accordance with law and accordingly the said portion by which the stigma has been made against the petitioner is hereby deleted. In future service, the same will not affect the service of the petitioner.

¶43

12. Accordingly, the order of removal from service passed against the petitioner is confirmed but the stigma passed against him is deleted from the order of removal.

¶44

13. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed off.

¶45

Sd/(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶46

VishakhaVISHAKHABEOHAR Digitallysigned byVISHAKHABEOHAR

Sanjay Kumar Chopde v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Chopde v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Geetanjali Construction Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Geetanjali Construction Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishnu Satnami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Premkumar Saluja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahavir Prasad Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Arti Saluja Vs State of Chhattisgarh