Kartik Ram Narang Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Social Welfare, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office & Police Station Naya Raipur, Distirct Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Collector, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Nagar Panchayat, Bhatgaon, through the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Bhatgaon, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms. Avit Lakra, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2/State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate.

¶15

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal)

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

22/10/2024

¶18

The petitioner by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashment of the order of the Collector, Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, dated 21-10-2016 (Annexure P-1), by which his appeal preferred under Rule 56 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 (for

¶19

Page 2 of 6

¶20

{W.P.(S)No.6196/2016}

¶21

short, ‘the Rules of 1968’) read with Rule 13 of the Chhattisgarh Nagarpalika Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2008’), has been dismissed finding no merit.

¶22

The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: -

¶23

The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III by order dated 26-8-2006 (Annexure P-3) which he joined on 28-8-2006 at Kanya Primary School, Bhatgaon and thereafter, he was promoted as Lab Assistant (Science) on 26-8-2007 at Higher Secondary School, Bhatgaon and after completion of probation period of two years, his services were regularised vide order dated 30-5-2011 filed along with the rejoinder, on the said post. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that by order dated 20-2-2014 (Annexure P-1A) , his services have been terminated on the ground that he had submitted forged mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School (10+2) and while issuing the order of termination, neither he was given any opportunity of hearing nor any departmental enquiry was conducted against him. Admittedly, departmental enquiry has not been conducted against the petitioner under the Rules of 1968, therefore, the order of termination is liable to be set aside.

¶24

Return has been filed opposing the writ petition stating inter alia that since the mark-sheet was found forged, therefore, the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with, which is strictly in accordance with law.

¶25

Page 3 of 6

¶26

{W.P.(S)No.6196/2016}

¶27

Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner opposing the allegations made in the return.

¶28

Ms. Avit Lakra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that departmental enquiry ought to have been conducted against the petitioner, who was regular employee, as provided in Rule 52 of the Rules of 1968 by following the procedure laid down in the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1966’), which has not been done, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

¶29

Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, would support the impugned order and submit that since the marksheet on the basis of which appointment of the petitioner was sought, was found forged, therefore, as per the resolution of the President-inCouncil of Nagar Panchayat, Bhatgaon, dated 14-2-2014 in accordance with the Rules of 1968 and the Rules of 2008, the services of the petitioner have been terminated, which is strictly in accordance with law.

¶30

At this stage, Ms. Lakra, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that even under the Right to Information Act, 2005, copy of mark-sheet was sought by the petitioner in response to which it has been replied that the said mark-sheet has now been got damaged by termites and is not available and therefore copy of the same could not be supplied.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the material available on record with great care and caution as well.

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

{W.P.(S)No.6196/2016}

¶34

10.Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 26-8-2006, he joined the service on 28-8-2006 at Kanya Primary School, Bhatgaon and thereafter, he was posted as Lab Assistant (Science) on 268-2007 at Higher Secondary School, Bhatgaon and after completion of probation period, his services were regularised on 30-5-2011. As such, on the date of order of termination, he was in the regular service of Municipal Council, Bhatgaon, however, his services have been terminated vide order dated 20-2-2014, which states as under: -

¶35

dk;kZy; uxj iapk;r] HkVxkao ftyk&cykSnkcktkj&HkkVkikjk ¼N-x-½

¶36

dzekad@960@u-ia-Hk-@LFkk-@2014 HkVxkao]fnukad 20@02@2014

¶37

@@vkns’k@@

¶38

NRrhlx<+ uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e 1961 o NRrhlx<+ uxj ikfydk deZpkjh ¼HkrhZ rFkk lsok ,oa ‘krsZa½ 1968 rFkk NRrhlx<+ uxj ikfydk f’k{kkdehZ ¼HkrhZ rFkk lsok ‘krsZ½ fu;e 2008 ds fu;e 11 ,oa 12 ds rgr ,oa izsalhMsUV&bu&dkmafly ds cSBd fnukad 14-02-2014 ds fu.kZ; dzekad 04 ds vuqlkj Jh dkfrZd jke ukjax lgk;d f’k{kd ‘kk-dU;k mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky; HkVxkao dks gk;j lsds.Mªh ¼10$2½ dh vad lwph esa xyr ¼QthZ½ ik;s tkus ds dkj.k lgk;d f’k{kd ds in ls lsokeqDr ¼c[kkZLr½ fd;k tkrk gSA ;g vkns’k rRdky izHkko’khy gksxkA mUgsa fdlh izdkj dh osru HkRrk vkfn ns; ugha gksxkA

¶39

11.The petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector, Baloda BazaarBhatapara, against the order of termination under Rule 56 of the Rules of 1968, which the Collector has dismissed holding that the petitioner’s mark-sheet was forged, therefore, his services have rightly been

¶40

Page 5 of 6

¶41

{W.P.(S)No.6196/2016}

¶42

terminated. Admittedly, in the present case, Rule 52 of the Rules of 1968 would be applicable under which procedure for imposing minor and major penalties has been prescribed. It states as under: -

¶43

“ 52. Procedure for imposing minor and major penalties . —Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act and these rules the procedure for imposing major and minor penalties shall be regulated according to the procedure laid down in the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the General Book Circulars applicable to the Government servants subject to the modification that if the report of the Enquiry Officer is received by the disciplinary authority or if the enquiry has been carried out by the disciplinary authority itself, after he has completed the enquiry, the delinquent shall be heard on merits as well as punishment and a formal notice to showcause need not be served on him.”

¶44

12.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that neither charge-sheet was served to the petitioner nor any departmental enquiry has been conducted and even no notice was served to him and straightway, his services have been terminated finding that the mark-sheet allegedly submitted by him in the year 2006 is forged which is in teeth of Rule 52 of the Rules of 1968 read with Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966, which prescribes for a regular enquiry, as made applicable by Rule 52. Moreover, a regular municipal servant has been terminated without instituting departmental proceeding against him and without conducting departmental enquiry which is per se illegal and without jurisdiction and also without authority of law.

¶45

13.As such, the impugned order dated 21-10-2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara as well as the order of

¶46

Page 6 of 6

¶47

{W.P.(S)No.6196/2016}

¶48

termination dated 20-2-2014 (Annexure P-1A) passed by Nagar Panchayat, Bhatgaon, both, are quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all other consequential benefits. However, respondent No.3 is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

¶49

14.The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No

¶50

order as to cost(s).

¶51

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE

¶52

Soma

Kartik Ram Narang v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartik Ram Narang 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rajni Singh Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Karan Singh Kabire Vs Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. And Anr.

Jagpal Singh Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Manharan Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

A. B. Khan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Farooque Momin Vs State Of Chhattisgarh