Allowed

Mohit Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jul 2024WPS/5345/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contractual Guard dismissed by a stigmatic order without a proper departmental enquiry under Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Rules, 1966 had the dismissal order quashed; authorities left free to take fresh action per the rules.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal order dated 05.11.2012 quashed; respondents No.5 & 6 free to take fresh action in accordance with the Rules, 1966.

Mohit Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 5345 of 2012

¶5

Mohit Kumar Sahu S/o Umeshwar Lal Sahu Aged About 30 Years Vill. Mogra, P.S. And Post And Tah. And Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Thru The Secretary, School Edu. Deptt., Mahanadi Mantralay, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2. Collector Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Distt. Baloda Bazar

¶10

3. Collector And Distt. Mission Director Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mision, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4. Jila Pariyojna Sanchalak Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

5. Pariyojna Nideshak Jila Gramin Vikash Abhikaran, District : BalodabazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶13

6. Superintendent Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Kasdol Dist. Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner	: Mr. Sanjay Patel , Advocate
For State	: Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondents No. 5 & 6	: Mr . Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

1 5.07.2024

¶20

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction and set-aside/quash the impugned order no. 2198D.R.D.A./Ra.ga.shi.mi./2012 Balodabazar dated 05.11.2012(Annexure P/3) passed by respondent NO. 5.

¶22

10.2 Cost of the petition may also be allowed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶23

10.3 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed to

¶25

¶26

the post of Guard vide Order dated 29.05.2008 and he was posted at Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Kasdol, District Raipur. He further submitted that an enquiry was initiated against him and respondent No. 5/Superintendent, Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Kasdol passed an order of dismissal from service on 05.11.2012. It was also stated in the order that it would be a disqualification for services in future. He also submitted that the petitioner was appointed on contract but since the order of punishment is stigmatic, therefore, he could not have been removed from services without holding a proper enquiry . It is further contended that the services of the petitioner were governed under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1966’), but no article of charges was issued and no proper departmental enquiry was conducted, therefore, the order is bad in law.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 5 & 6 would oppose and submit that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.09.2012 directing the petitioner to appear before the enquiry officers. He further submitted that the enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Project Coordinator, Block Resource Coordinator and Block Education Officer, Kasdol and the enquiry report was also supplied to the petitioner. He also submitted that since the petitioner was a contractual employee, his contract was for a period of one year. It is further contended that the petitioner failed to cross-examine the witnesses and consequently, the order of removal was passed.

¶28

Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the State would support the contention made by Mr. Bhaduri.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on a contract basis vide Order dated 29.05.2008 to the post of Guard for a period of one year, but para 16 of the return filed by respondents No. 5 & 6 would make it clear that services of the petitioner were governed as per the Rules, 1966.

¶32

In the present case, a show-cause notice (Annexure R/1) was issued, but allegations have not been stated in that notice. The petitioner was simply directed to appear before the Enquiry Officers; the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to file a reply to the article of charges; some witnesses of the department were examined; and finally, the order of dismissal from service with further disqualification was passed against the petitioner. Thus, the enquiry contemplated under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966 was not conducted. Since the order was passed by them; the petitioner was appointed on contract; but as the order is stigmatic, the enquiry ought to have been conducted by the authority strictly in accordance with provisions of the Rules, 1966.

¶33

In the present case, no article or charges was issued to the petitioner; no order has been placed with regard to the appointment of the enquiry officer and presenting officer; no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner to defend his case; and, the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966 have not been complied with, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the order passed by respondent No. 5 (Annexure P/3) dated 05.11.2012 is liable to be and is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed .

¶34

However, respondents No. 5 & 6 would be at liberty to take appropriate action strictly in accordance with the Rules, 1966 if so advised.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

$iddhant

Mohit Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chander Sai Shyam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Devbharat Sahu and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

S.d. Yadav Vs Union Of India and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Sahu and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shyama Charan Banjare Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Sethua and Ors. Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.