Omprakash Rathiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:22795

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Writ Petition (S) No. 2746 of 2017

¶6

Omprakash Rathiya S/o Shri Vishwanath Rathiya Aged About 43 Years R/o Saskoba, Police StationDharamjaigarh, DistrictRaigarh, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Coopertive Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, P.S.- Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

The Managing Director, District Forest Produce Union Limited, Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

The Deputy Registrar, Forest Produce Union Limited, Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

The Authorized Officer Forest Range Officer, Primary Forest Produce Cooperative Society Limited, Rairuma Range, Bakaruma, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

2

¶16

For Petitioner	:Mr.	Amit Sharma,Advocate
For Respondents	: Mr.	Ashutosh Shukla, P.L.
No. 1 & 3/ State
For Respondents	: Mr.	A.S. Kacchawaha, Advocate
No.2& 5

¶17

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶18

09.06.2025

¶19

1. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 19/04/2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Tribunal, Bilaspur in Appeal Case no. 20/2016 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner and affirming the order dated 05/05/2016 (Annexure P/5) by which the respondent No. 3 has affirmed the order dated 24/07/2014 (Annexure P/4) whereby respondent No. 4 has affirmed the order dated 04/02/2014 (Annexure P/3) by which respondent No. 2 has terminated the service of the petitioner from the post of Manager, Primary Forest Produce Cooperative Samiti Maryadit, Rairuma.

¶20

2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 01/02/2014, he was served with a notice of termination thereby giving him only 24 hours’ time to file reply failing which he was ultimately terminated from service by order dated 04/02/2014

¶21

3

¶22

(Annexure P/3) passed by respondent No. 5 without affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing and without informing him about the charges on the basis of which he was sought to be terminated. Being aggrieved, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 55(2) of Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the Act of 1960”) before respondent No. 4 i.e. the Deputy Registrar but the same has been mechanically dismissed by him vide order dated 24/07/2014 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner then preferred an appeal under Section 78(1) of the Act of 1960 before the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Registrar challenging the order of termination as well as the order passed by the Deputy Registrar but his appeal also stood dismissed vide order dated 05/05/2016 (Annexure P/5) which was then mechanically affirmed by the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Tribunal, Bilaspur vide impugned order dated 19/04/2017 (Annexure P/1) in the appeal preferred by the petitioner without making any observation that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before he was terminated from service.

¶23

3. Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has been terminated from service by respondent No. 5 without affording him a

¶24

4

¶25

reasonable opportunity of hearing as only 24 hours’ time was granted to him to file reply to the show cause notice and since the next day and the day after were Saturday and Sunday, the petitioner could not file reply and immediately thereafter, his order of termination was passed on 04/02/2014, which is absolutely unsustainable and bad in law and is completely against the principles of natural justice, as such, the instant writ petition be allowed and the order of petitioner’s termination as well as the orders passed by the appellate authorities be set aside.

¶26

4. Per contra, Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 5, would support the impugned order and submit that petitioner has rightly been terminated from service as allegations of misappropriation were levelled against him and he was given due opportunity of hearing and since he failed to file reply to the show cause notice in the time given to him, his order of termination was passed which is absolutely in accordance with law and it has rightly been affirmed by the appellate authorities, therefore, the instant writ petition be dismissed.

¶27

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶28

5

¶29

6. It is apparent from the record that petitioner was appointed on the post of Manager, Primary Forest Produce Cooperative Samiti Maryadit on 05/03/2000 (Annexure P/8) and on 01/02/2014, he was served with notice for taking action against him under Section 53-B(b) of the Act of 1960 and was granted only 24 hours’ time to file reply and since on account of such a short period of time, the petitioner failed to file reply, he was ultimately terminated from service by order dated 04/02/2014 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent No. 5. Being aggrieved, petitioner raised a dispute under Section 55(2) of the Act of 1960 but the Deputy Registrar (Respondent No. 4) affirmed the order of termination by order dated 24/07/2014 (Annexure P/4) which was also affirmed by the Registrar (Respondent No. 3) by order dated 05/05/2016 (Annexure P/5) as well as by the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Tribunal, Bilaspur by order impugned dated 19/04/2017 (Annexure P/1).

¶30

7. It is quite vivid that show cause notice was served to the petitioner on 01/02/2014 and only 24 hours’ time was granted to him to file reply and since 02/02/2014 and 03/02/2014 were Saturday and Sunday, petitioner could not file reply and ultimately, his order of termination was passed by respondent No. 5 on 04/02/2014 (Annexure P/3).

¶31

6

¶32

8. Notice is the first limb of the principle that no one should be condemned unheard. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. [ See : Canara Bank and

¶33

others v. Debasis Das and others 1]

¶34

9. In the instant case, only 24 hours’ time was granted to the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice of termination which can hardly be termed as sufficient for defending himself against a serious punishment like termination and since the petitioner failed to file reply in such a short period of time, order of his termination was passed on 04/02/2014 which is completely in violation of principles of natural justice. Moreover, it appears from the record that the appeals preferred by the petitioner against the order of his termination have mechanically been dismissed by the Deputy Registrar (Respondent No. 4), Registrar (Respondent No. 3) and by the Chhattisgarh

¶35

1 (2003) 4 SCC 557

¶36

7

¶37

Cooperative Tribunal, Bilaspur which is unsustainable and bad in law. In that view of the matter, the order of termination dated 04/02/2014 (Annexure P/3) as well as the orders passed by the Appellate Authorities dated 24/07/2014 (Annexure P/4), 05/05/2016 (Annexure P/5) and 01/02/2014 (Annexure P/1) are hereby quashed. Matter is remitted to respondent No. 2, being the competent authority, who shall consider it afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after recording the statement of the petitioner and giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing.

¶38

10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s).

¶39

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶40

Harneet

Omprakash Rathiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash Rathiya 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

Neel Kamal Garg Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/S Anil Buildcon (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Tiwari @Pappu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harpal Sing Rajput Vs State Govt. Of C.g.

H. C. Prakash Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt.lilima Kujur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh