Termination of a permanent government employee without due process or inquiry violates legal rights.

Order on Board

09.07.2025

1) The petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated

03.05.2018 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner was removed from the services.

2) Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Observer in the Department of Women and Child Development. He would further submit that in December 2006, the petitioner suffered a major orthopaedic ailment, due to which she applied for casual leave from 06.12.2006 to 08.12.2006. He would also submit that as there was no improvement in the health condition of the petitioner, she sought extension of leave up to 05.01.2007. The petitioner regularly informed the Project Officer about her health condition and submitted medical certificates accordingly. Her absence continued due to her prolonged illness till 22.07.2007.

3) It is submitted that despite the submission of proper medical documents and the application for extension of leave, her medical claims were intentionally delayed.

She made several representations regarding the alleged ill-treatment.

4) Mr. Koshta would argue that in the year 2012, nearly six years after the incident, the department initiated a departmental enquiry alleging that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent during the period from 06.12.2006 to 22.07.2007. The petitioner actively participated in the enquiry proceedings and submitted all supporting documents. He would further argue that the Enquiry Officer admitted that though the medical certificates were submitted, but the absence was unauthorized. Consequently, a minor penalty stricture was inflicted on the petitioner by an order dated 09.03.2018 (Annexure P-2).

5) He submits that on 19.02.2018, the petitioner submitted a letter (Annexure P-3) to the Director, stating that she had been on medical leave since 14.10.2013 and was still unfit for duty. Therefore, she opted for voluntary retirement, but instead of considering her application objectively, the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 03.05.2018, on the ground that she remained absent from duties for a period of more than three years. Mr. Koshta would also submit that the petitioner was a regular and permanent Government servant, she could not have been removed from services without following the due process of law. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Krishan Kumar Kosaria v. State of Chhattisgarh

6) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions of Mr. Koshta and submits that the petitioner failed to attend duty despite the issuance of a show cause notice, which was also served through paper publication. It is argued that due to long absence from duty, the petitioner’s services were terminated under Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 (for short, Rules, 1977), and Fundamental Rule 18 (for short, FR-18). It is also submitted that earlier also, the petitioner remained absent and was penalized after a departmental enquiry; therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

7) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the file.

8) Admittedly, the petitioner was a regular Government employee. On account of her medical condition, she could not join her duties from 14.10.2013, and ultimately, vide order dated 03.05.2018, her services were terminated.

9) Perusal of the termination order (Annexure P/1) reveals that no departmental enquiry was conducted according to provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, (for short, CCA Rules, 19