Asma Ahmad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:31644

¶3

Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 4626 of 2015

¶7

Asma Ahmad D/o Gulam Ahmad, Aged About 28 Years Earlier Posted As Programmer Officer At Office Of The Janpad Panchayat Akaltara, Distirct Janjgir Champa R/o Police Line Masan Ganj, P. S. Civil Line, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Collector, Janjgir Champa District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms. Deeksha Goraha, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶16

21.08.2024

¶17

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 05.10.2015 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Janjgir-Champa.

¶18

10.2 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit

¶19

-2-

¶20

and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

¶21

Ms. Gauraha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Programme Officer under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme at Janpad Panchayat, JanjgirChampa (C.G.) vide order dated 12.10.2012 on contract for a period of one year. She further submitted that the contract period was extended from time to time but vide order dated 05.10.2015, the services of the petitioner were terminated making certain allegations on the ground that the petitioner was not following the order of the superior authorities and she was negligent and acting in an arbitrary manner. She further argued that the order impugned dated 05.10.2015 is stigmatic but no opportunity of hearing was afforded and even no notice was served upon the petitioner. She also argued that the services of the petitioner were not terminated according to the provisions of Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 (for short ‘the Rules of 2012’), therefore, the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶22

On the other hand, Mr. Ghosh, the learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Gauraha. He submitted that the work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory as she was not following the instructions/directions/orders issued by the superior authorities and acting in an arbitrary manner, therefore, she was removed from

¶23

3

¶24

services. He further submitted that there was no need to issue a show cause notice when it was found that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶26

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chandra Prakash

¶27

Shahi v. State of UP and others, 2000 (5) SCC 152 in para 12

¶28

observed as under:-

¶29

“12. Now, it is well settled that the temporary government servants or probationers are as much entitled to the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as the permanent employees despite the fact that temporary government servants have no right to hold the post and their services are liable to be terminated at any time by giving them a month's notice without assigning any reason either in terms of the contract of service or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of such service. The courts can, therefore, lift the veil of an innocuouslyworded order to look at the real face of the order and to find out whether it is as innocent as worded. (See: Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36) It is explained in this decision that inefficiency, negligence or misconduct may have been the factors for inducing the Government to terminate the services of a temporary employee under the terms of the contract or under the statutory Service Rules regulating the terms and conditions of service which, to put in differently, may have been the motive for terminating the services but the motive by itself does not make the order punitive unless the order was “founded” on those factors or other disqualifications.”

¶30

In the matter of Kaushal Chandrakar and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2021 SCC Online Chh 2251, this

¶31

Court in para-20 held as under:-

¶32

“20.The Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Vijaykumaran (supra) has clearly held that material which amounts to stigma need not be contained in the order of termination of the probationer, but might be

¶33

-4-

¶34

contained in any document referred to in the termination order. It was further held that such reference may inevitably affect the future prospects of the incumbent and if so, the order must be construed as ex facie stigmatic order of termination....”

¶35

Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Chandra Prakash Shahi (supra) and Kaushal Chandrakar (supra) and material available on record, this Court is of the firm opinion that the order of termination dated 05.10.2015 is not a termination simpliciter, but it is held to be stigmatic or punitive, and the same has been passed without compliance with the principles of natural justice and without holding any departmental enquiry, and therefore, the position of law as reproduced hereinabove would operate to grant relief to the petitioner.

¶36

Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the present case, the order Annexure P/1 dated 05.10.2015 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the authority concerned who shall pass an order afresh after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2012.

¶37

9. With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition is disposed of . Sd/-

¶38

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶39

Rekha

Asma Ahmad v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asma Ahmad 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

Smt.savita Mishra Vs The State Of Government Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Himanshu Singh Rana Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pila Babu Nagvanshi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Shailesh Tiwari Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ors.

Raju Singh Porte Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt.santoshi Tandan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.