Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8593

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Bhojeshwar Chandrakar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Council Science And Technology – Respondent
WPS No. 4676 of 2021|WPS No. 4690 of 2021|WPS No. 4741 of 2021|WPS No. 4644 of 2021|WPS No. 4639 of 2021|WPS No. 4897 of 2021|WPS No. 6573 of 2021|WPS No. 4133 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ravi Kumar Bhagat, J.K. Gupta, Sudeep Johri
For the Respondents: Anand Gupta, Saurabh Kumar Pande

Termination of a regular employee for alleged initial recruitment irregularities, without conducting a formal departmental enquiry or providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing, constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution, rendering such termination illegal and arbitrary.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 311(2) - Termination of regularization service - Violation of principles of natural justice - Petitioners were regularized in 2014 and worked for several years before being terminated in 2020 without a regular departmental enquiry - Held, any action involving civil consequences must follow due process and afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard - Principles of audi alteram partem were violated as respondents failed to conduct proper enquiry or provide opportunity to defend. (Paras 8, 10, 15, 17-19)

(B) Administrative Law - Regularization - If any irregularity existed in initial appointment, it is attributable to the employer and employees cannot be penalized for authority's lapse after years of service absent fraud or misrepresentation - Appellate order rejecting appeal was non-speaking and unreasoned, failing to meet legal requirements. (Paras 11, 14)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, initially appointed on collector rates in 2011-2012, were regularized in 2014 as Peons. After a dispute regarding salary reduction, they were subsequently terminated in 2020 through an order claiming their original recruitment/regularization was irregular and violated recruitment rules. Their departmental appeals were rejected.

Findings of Court:
The court found the termination arbitrary and violative of natural justice. It noted the petitioners had attained the status of regular employees, thus attracting constitutional protections. As the irregularity, if any, was the employer's fault, termination after years of service without a proper enquiry was unlawful.

Issues: Whether the termination of the petitioners' services after completion of probation was illegal due to the lack of a proper enquiry and violation of the principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: A regular employee cannot be terminated for alleged initial procedural irregularities attributable to the employer without a fair and proper departmental enquiry, as non-compliance with natural justice principles violates administrative fairness and constitutional safeguards under Article 14 and 311(2).

Result: Petitions allowed; termination and appellate orders quashed; reinstatement directed with notional benefits, but without backwages.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and facts of the case regarding summary termination. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding procedural irregularities and the necessity of departmental enquiry. (Para 4 , 5)
3. violation of constitutional safeguards and natural justice in termination. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. employer missteps cannot be penalized against employees after long service. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. requirement of reasoned orders and adherence to fair hearing principles. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. conclusion setting aside termination and ordering reinstatement without backwages. (Para 21)

CAV Order

1. Since all the petitions assail the common order and involve interconnected issues, they were heard and being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and the documents placed in WPS No.4676/2021 are being referred.

2. Challenge in all the petitions is to the order dated 21/9/2020 whereby the petitioners have been terminated from the respective services as also the order dated 17/3/2021 by which the departmental appeals of the petitioners have been rejected.

3. (A) The facts, as projected in the instant writ petitions, are that, initially the petitioners were appointed on Collector rate between the period 2011-2012. Looking to the services rendered by the petitioners, they have been regularized on the post of Peon in the regular pay scale of Rs. 4700-4750-7440/- + Grade Pay Rs. 1300/- in the year 2014. On the completion of probation period, when their services were not confirmed, the petitioners moved representations and prayed for confirmation of their respective services. In the meanwhile, on account of reduction of salary, the petitioners preferred WPS No.3094/2017 which was allowed by this Court holding that the manner of reduction from salary of the petitioners from July 2017 is held illegal as such, the petitioners are entitled for salary in accordance with the contract of appointment. In the said writ petition, this Court reserved liberty to the respondents observing that it would be open for the respondents to take appropriate decision in the service matter of the petitioners on the basis of enquiry report collected by the respondents and due consideration of reply to the show cause notices, by a speaking order in respect of each of the petitioners. Subsequently, the respondent authorities issued notices to the petitioners and sought explanation on the following points:-

“1.परिषद कार्यालय मेंदैनिक वेतन भोगी/संविदा कर्मचारी के रूप में आपकी नियुक्ति के लिए क्या कोई विज्ञापन जारी किया गया ?

2. क्या आपके द्वारा इस विज्ञापन के आधार पर आवेदन दिया गया ?

3. आवेदन उपरांत क्या कोई परीक्षा / साक्षात्कार के माध्यम सेआपका चयन किया गया?

4. परिषद कार्यालय मेंदैनिक वेतन भोगी सेनियमित कर्मचारी के रूप में आपकी नियुक्ति किस आधार पर तथा किस चयन प्रक्रिया/भर्ती प्रक्रिया से की गई I

5. क्या इस नियमित वेतनमान मेंभर्ती किए जानेके लिए कोई विज्ञापन जारी किया गया तथा इस विज्ञापन के आधार पर आपनेपरिषद कार्यालय में आवेदन जमा किया ?

6. क्या आपके द्वारा कोई परीक्षा/साक्षात्कार आदि चयन प्रक्रिया सेहोकर आपका चयन नियमित कर्मचारी के रूप मेंकिया गया ?”

(B) After receipt of the said notices, the respective petitioners submitted their reply. In response to the further correspondence also, the petitioners submitted their reply and submitted the requisite information/documents sought for by the respondent authorities. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court by filing WPS No.5220/2019 and sought a direction towards the respondents authorities to consider their candidature for confirmation on the posts. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17/07/2019 by directing the respondents authorities to consider the case of the petitioners with respect to their confirmation at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order. Thereagainst, the respondent No.2 herein preferred WA No.543/2019 which w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8593

Cases Referred (4)