Praveen Kumar Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:10951

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 604 of 2021

¶6

Praveen Kumar Rathore S/o Kamal Kuamar Rathore Aged About 29 Years R/o Mq 265, Urja Nagar, Gevra, Dipka- Jana, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Director Directorate Of Panchayat Iind Floor Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Deputy Director, Panchayat, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Collector Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

Pramod Kumar Harit Presently Working As Deputy Director, Panchayat, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

K. S. Mandavi Presently Posted As Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate For State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer

¶18

For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

05.03.2025

¶22

Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADAV YADAV Date: 2025.03.21 18:23:56 +0530

¶23

2

¶24

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 27.09.2019 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No. 4 Collector, District - Jashpur (C.G.) by which the services of the petitioner who was working as Data Entry Operator in the office of Deputy Director, Panchayat Jashpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.) were terminated after giving one month notice vide order dated 27.09.2019.

¶25

Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator in the Panchayat Department on 04.10.2016 (Annexure P/3), he was appointed for 2 years probation period and was posted at office of District Panchayat, District - Jashpur (C.G.). The name of the petitioner is at serial No. 10 of the appointment order. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner due to medical emergency was on leave from 25.06.2019 to 19.09.2019 and documents pertaining to his illness were handed over to one Kuldeep Singh Hazri and information was also given to the Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Jashpur via telephone. Thereafter, he gave his joining on 20.09.2019 and thereafter, impugned order of termination dated 27.09.2019 was issued by the Collector Jashpur (C.G.). It is pertinent to mention here that alongwith his joining letter he has submitted Form No. 3 and 4 and also application for leave and also prayed for converting the absent as earned leave or any other type of leave which was not considered.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after issuance of impugned order of termination dated 27.09.2019 (Annexure

¶27

3

¶28

P/1), the Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Jashpur has directed the Chief Medical and Health Officer Jashpur to verify the certificate submitted by the petitioner so that his leave can be considered. Thereafter, the Civil Surgeon-cum Chief Hospital Superintendent vide his memo dated 13.12.2019 has directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board on 19.12.2019 for Medical Examination alongwith the relevant documents. The Medical Board vide its memo dated 06.01.2020 has verified the same and found it to be true and there is no doubt over the truthness of the said document. The Chief Executive Officer, thereafter, vide memo dated 05.12.2019 has again issued notice to the petitioner to verify the facts. The petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice on 04.01.2020. it is pertinent to mention here that Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat jashpur has sought information with regard to admission of the petitioner in coaching institute at New Delhi vide its memo dated 01.01.2020.

¶29

It is the case of the petitioner that the Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchyat Jashpur vide its memo dated 22.02.2020 has requested the Director Panchayat to issue necessary direction for preparation of charge-sheet and thereafter, he has also sought clarification on 14.07.2020 from the Medical Board Surguja regarding the truthness and correctness of the Form No. 3 and 4 submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed WP(S) No. 3465/2020 wherein the validity of order dated 14.05.2020 (Annexure P/2) by which the Director Panchayat has directed for conducting the enquiry in accordance with law. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.09.2020 has dismissed the

¶30

4

¶31

said petition. The petitioner has preferred WA No. 394/2020 challenging the order of the Single Judge wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 28.10.2020 has granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition seeking quashment of all such orders by the authorities which are adverse to his interest. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶32

Thereafter, the respondents have issued charge-sheet to the petitioner on 21.01.2021 regarding the allegations levelled against him. This court vide order dated 12.02.2021 has directed to maintain status quo, since then the enquiry proceedings are installed. On this factual foundation he would pray for quashing of the impugned order dated 27.09.2019 (Annexure P/1).

¶33

On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No. 5 opposing the submission would submit that the petitioner was a probationer and his probation period has not been completed, therefore, no enquiry is required to be carried out and would submit that since the petitioner remained absent without any notice and without obtaining sanction of leave which is total disobedience, therefore, termination of his services is legal and justified and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶35

From perusal of the Annexure P/1, it is quite vivid that the services of the petitioner were terminated putting certain allegations against him though he was a probationer when such allegations are levelled against the probationer which are required to be enquired, therefore, without conducting the enquiry to assess the truthness

¶36

5

¶37

or correctness of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, the impugned order could not have been passed. The record of the case would clearly demonstrate that subsequently the State has already initiated proceedings for taking disciplinary action by issuing the charge-sheet to the petitioner which has been kept in abeyance in view of the interim order passed by this Court, therefore, I am of the view that since subsequently the State has already removed the anomaly created by themselves, therefore, the petitioner is allowed to join duty forthwith and respondents will complete the Departmental Enquiry in accordance with law giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear that allowing the petitioner to join the duty will not entitle him to any back wages and grant of any monitory benefits including back wages subject to final outcome of enquiry proceedings which has been initiated in pursuance of charge-sheet dated 21.01.2021. Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.09.2019 (Annexure P/1) is quashed in view of the subsequent order.

¶38

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed on the merit of the contentions raised by the parties in view of the fact that respondent itself has already diluted the effect of termination by conducting enquiry. It is also made clear that the contentions raised by the parties are left open that would be decided in the enquiry proceedings in accordance with law.

¶39

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part.

¶40

Manish

Praveen Kumar Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Rathore 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

Ramawatar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunita @ Nikita Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Domar Singh Verma Vs Mohd. Raja

Amrit Kumar Patel Vs Raj Singh Vishwakarma

Rama Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satnam Singh Chawla Vs Santosh Khatri