Quashed

Bineet Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Dec 2024WPS/3140/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the termination order of a contractual Technical Assistant issued on allegations of negligence and misuse of funds without conducting a formal enquiry. Relying on natural justice principles established in K. Raghupathi, the Court held that when allegations are denied and the order is punitive, an enquiry is mandatory. The respondents were granted liberty to initiate fresh pr

What did the court decide?

Impugned termination order dated 19.03.2019 is set aside/quashed. Respondents granted liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

Bineet Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Quashing and FIR | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 8

2024:CGHC:48082

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 3140 of 2019

¶6

1 - Bineet Kumar Jaiswal S/o Nagendra Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Pandri, Tahsil - Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Collector Balrampur Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - Assistant Project Officer Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondents No. : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer 1 & 2 For Respondents No. : Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate 3 to 5

¶15

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶16

ORDER ON BOARD

¶17

05/12/2024

¶18

Digitally SHUBHAM signed by DEY SHUBHAM DEY

¶19

2 / 8

¶20

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call fore the entire records pertaining to the present case.

¶22

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may pleased to quash the impugned order dated 19.03.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat – BalrampurRamanujganj, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G).

¶23

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.”

¶24

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the the legality and sustainability of the impugned order dated 19.03.2019 (Annexure P/1) whereby, the petitioner who was working as Technical Assistant (Contract) was terminated leveling the allegations that the petitioner was negligent in discharge of his duties, acted in contravention of the Rules under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the MGNREGA) passed by the Respondent No. 3. By the act of petitioner, government fund was misused.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Technical Assistant on 03.10.2013 and was posted in the office of Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj. He was transferred to Janpad Panchayat Kusmi vide order dated 05.10.2024 and thereafter again, transferred to Janpad Panchayat Wadrafnagar, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj vide order dated 17.12.2016. He took charge in the office of Janpad Panchayat Wadrafnagar on 03.01.2017. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that prior joining of the petitioner in the office of Janpad Panchayat Wadrafnagar, some villagers of Village Panchayat Asandih lodged a

¶26

3 / 8

¶27

complaint before the Janpad Panchayat Wadrafnagar against the illegality and irregularity committed by the Sarpanch, Secretary and Rojgar Sahayak of Village Panchayat Asandih. Based on the complaint, the work done by the Sarpanch, Secretary and Rojgar Sahayak in the village panchayat under the MGNREGA was re-valuated. At the time of revaluation, the petitioner being the Technical Assistant posted was also directed to participate in the re-valuation work and accordingly, he revalued the work done by the Sarpanch, Secretary and Rojgar Sahayak of the Village Panchayat Asandih and submitted the report prepared by the Executive Engineer in presence of the petitioner valuing the work at Rs. 3,41,709/-.

¶28

He contended that based on the said report, initially show-cause notice was issued to the then Sarpach, Secretary and Rojgar Sahayak of Village Panchayat Asandih. However, the petitioner was not noticed, enquiry was also conducted against them. The report was submitted on 05.03.2018 and in the report also, the Enquiry Officer has not made any observation with respect to any act of the petitioner. However, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice by the Respondent No. 3 on 27.06.2018 leveling the allegation that the petitioner submitted the valuation report of the work mentioning the amount of the work done as Rs. 8,76,232/-. The petitioner submitted reply clearing all the fact that the work which was done was of the year 2015-16 and on the said date, petitioner was not posted at Janpad Panchayat Wadrafnagar and he has done the measurement of the work only in between 01.04.2017 to 10.06.2017 and assessed the work as Rs. 4,53,048/-. Dissatisfied of the reply submitted by the petitioner, again, show-cause notice was issued on 05.03.2019 wherein, petitioner again submitted the reply mentioning the same facts. However, without considering the fact that the petitioner was not posted on the date of first valuation done by the then Technical Assistant posted

¶29

4 / 8

¶30

there at that relevant period, assessing the work done to the value of Rs. 8,76,232/- have straightaway passed the impugned order of termination from service dated 19.03.2019.

¶31

He contended that when once the termination of the petitioner is based on the allegation of negligence in discharge of the duty and causing loss as also in violation of the Rules under the MGNREGA, the order passed is in violation of the principles of natural justice as no enquiry was conducted to prove the allegation leveled against him. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Raghupathi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2022) 6 SCC 346, Anjana Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WPS No. 5942 of 2017, Meva Prasad Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WPS No. 7461 of 2023, Humendra Kumar Pawade vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WA No. 813 of 2018.

¶32

Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 3 to 5 while opposing the submission of the counsel for the petitioner would submit that before passing of the impugned order dated 19.03.2019, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling his explanation on the allegations mentioned in the show-cause notice, to which, petitioner submitted reply. Dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Respondent No. 3 again issued show-cause notice vide Annexure R/9 dated 05.03.2019. The petitioner has again, submitted the reply to the show-cause notice, however, only after considering the second reply submitted by the petitioner, impugned order dated 19.03.2019 was passed. She submits that as prior to passing of the impugned order, show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner to which, he submitted reply, therefore, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the order passed is in violation of the principles of natural justice is not correct.

¶33

5 / 8

¶34

Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 & 2 also opposes the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order dated 19.03.2019 by adopting the submission made by the counsel for the Respondents No. 3 to 5.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record along with the writ petition.

¶36

Perusal of the impugned order would show that the petitioner was terminated from service on the allegations that he was negligent in discharge of his duties and the valuation of work made by him and the amount withdrawn based on the valuation was found to be true. It is also mentioned that the government fund was misused and the petitioner was held liable for the same. When the allegation is of misconduct and misuse of the funds, holding the employee liable, the minimum which is to be expected from the authority to prove the allegations leveled against him by conducting an enquiry, giving opportunity to defend the charges, crossexamining the witnesses and to produce evidence in his support.

¶37

10.In the case at hand, the petitioner has denied the allegations mentioned in the show-cause notice by making specific averment that he was not posted on the date of the first valuation report submitted for an amount of Rs. 8,76,232/- and he took the charge in the office Janpad Panchayat Wadrafnagar, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj only on 03.01.2017. The re-valuation report which is submitted by the petitioner of the work done based on the directives issued by the superior authority was submitted valuing the work to the tune of Rs. 4,53,048/-. When the allegations have been specifically denied by submitting specific reply by the petitioner, it was for the respondents to follow the due procedure of law before passing the order of termination. Order passed by the respondents terminating his service is not simplicitor, but is punitive on allegations, not only affecting

¶38

6 / 8

¶39

the present service on which he was posted but, it is going to affect the future career of the petitioner also.

¶40

11.Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Raghupathi Vs. State of Uttar

¶41

Pradesh & Ors. (2022) 6 SCC 346 while dealing with the termination of an employee (contract) has observed thus:

¶42

“ 14. It could thus be seen that though the communication of the said University dated 12-82014 states that the appellant's contractual period has expired, in the facts of the present case, it would reveal that his services were discontinued on account of the allegation made against him by the Dean of the said University. Since even according to the said University, though the employment was contractual but the employee was entitled to get all the benefits of a regular employee, we find that in the facts of the present case, the appellant's services could not have been terminated without following the principles of natural justice. We therefore find that the present appeal deserves to be allowed on this short ground.”

¶43

In the matter of Anjana Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others,

¶44

WPS No. 5942 of 2017 , the Coordinate Bench, in para 6 held as under :

¶45

“ 6 . Bare perusal of the impugned order of termination would manifest that the petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect. The order does not refer to any show cause notice or enquiry, wherein, the petitioner was allowed to participate. It is per se in violation of the principles of natural justice, which is clearly established from the language of the order of termination itself, therefore, for the reason that no order adverse to an individual be passed without following the principles of natural justice, as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Senior Vocational Staf Masters Association & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 4072) , the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby quashed at the admission stage itself. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the competent authority to take appropriate action after giving opportunity of hearing to the

¶46

7 / 8

¶47

petitioner or to take decision about continuation of the petitioner's services at the end of completion of the period of contract appointment .”

¶48

In the matter of Meva Prasad Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh and

¶49

others, WPS No. 7461 of 2023 , the Coordinate Bench, in para 5 held as under :

¶50

“ 5 . Bare perusal of the impugned order of termination would manifest that the Petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect. The order does not refer to any show cause notice or enquiry wherein the Petitioner was allowed to participate. It is per se in violation of the principles of natural justice, which is clearly established from the language of the order of termination itself, and therefore, for the reason that no order adverse to an individual be passed without following the principles of natural justice, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 4072) , the impugned order dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure-P/1) deserves to be and is hereby quashed at the admission stage itself. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the competent authority to take appropriate action after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and to take a decision about continuation of the Petitioner's services at the end of completion of the period of contract .”

¶51

14.Taking into consideration that the order of termination dated 19.03.2019 (Annexure P/1) against the petitioner was passed without conducting an enquiry and the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in the cases referred above, I am of the considered view that the order of termination dated 19.03.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed against the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, it

¶52

is set-aside/quashed .

¶53

8 / 8

¶54