Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, J.
Nohar Sai Kujur, S/o Late Shri Pachi Ram Kujur – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
WPS No. 1353 of 2015
Decided on : 03-10-2024
(A) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Termination of service – The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, was terminated without a departmental enquiry for unauthorized absence. The court found that the termination violated the principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) as no opportunity to be heard was provided. (Paras 6, 8, 10)
(B) Civil Service (C.C.A.) Rules, 1966 – The court emphasized that the rules require a proper enquiry and opportunity for the employee before termination. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case: The petitioner was absent due to ill health from 2007 to 2008, leading to termination without a proper enquiry. An appeal against the termination was dismissed on grounds of limitation. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court: The court held that the termination was illegal due to lack of opportunity for the petitioner to defend himself. (Paras 8, 10)
Issues: Whether the termination was valid given the absence of a departmental enquiry and opportunity to be heard. (Paras 6, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the termination was unconstitutional as it violated the right to a fair hearing under Article 311(2). (Paras 8, 10)
Result: The petition was allowed, setting aside the termination and granting consequential benefits except back wages.
ORDER :
RAJANI DUBEY, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief (S) :-
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate to the petitioner in service with all consequential benefit (arrears, seniority promotion)
10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.”
2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher and was working at Govt. Primary School, Sumairpur, Block Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.). The petitioner on account of his ill health was absent from 2007 to 23.04.2008, therefore, vide order dated 23.04.2008 (Annexure P/2), the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent No.3 due to unauthorized absent. Thereafter, on 09.05.2012, the petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure P/3) against the order of termination. When no action was taken by the respondent No.2 on the appeal filed by the petitioner, he moved an application before the Commission for Scheduled Tribes, Govt. of C.G., wherein a notice was issued to respondent No.2 to file reply and finally the Commission passed an order on 15.10.2013 (Annexure P/4) recommending the reinstatement of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 07.12.2013 (Annexure P/5) to respondent No.2 to take necessary action in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission for Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3782/2014 before this Hon’ble Court seeking implementation of order of Commission for Scheduled Tribes, however, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. After passage of consideration period when respondent No.2 did not supply the copy of order dated 07.12.2013 (Annexure P/1) whereby the appeal of the petitioner was rejected, the petitioner filed an application before the Commission and subsequently, the said order was supplied to the petitioner by the Commission on 18.03.2015 vide Annexure P/8.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was regular employee of the State Govt and the respondent authorities terminated the services of the petitioner without conducting/initiating departmental enquiry. The services of the petitioner was governed by the Civil Service (C.C.A.) Rule 1966, but the respondent No.3 did not follow the rule and straight-way terminated the services of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that as per order dated 23.04.2008, the respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, but the said notice was not served to the petitioner and the respondent No.3 terminated the services of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing, as such, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel also submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.2 merely on the ground of limitation and did not decide his appeal on merit. The petitioner had moved an application before the respondent No.2 on 31.01.2015 for early disposal of his appeal, but the respondent No.2 did not give information to the petitioner regarding passing of order dated 07.12.2013. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned order dated 07.12.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 is bad and malafide as the respondent No.1 had issued another letter dated 07.12.2013 to the respondent No.2 for necessary action in accordance with recommendation of the Commission for Scheduled Tribes and on the same day i.e. on 07.12.2013, the respondent No.2 without entering in to the merit of the case, rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of limitation, which shows malafide intention of respondent authorities and the same deserve
Termination of service without a departmental enquiry and opportunity to be heard violates Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, reads as services of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by....
A government servant cannot be dismissed without being informed of charges and given a reasonable opportunity to defend, as mandated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Termination of service without a mandatory inquiry violates procedural safeguards, and authorities must justify any bypassing of these procedures.
Compulsory retirement of permanent government servants under Article 226(2) without due process equates to removal under Article 126(2), rendering the provisions unconstitutional and invalid.
A temporary employee is entitled to the same protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India as permanent employees, especially against stigmatic termination without inquiry.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
