Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 24409
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Ram Prasad Dhurve – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 1044 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Raghvendra Pradhan
For the Respondents: Pranjal Shukla, Mahi Pandey, Chandresh Shrivastava
Dismissal of an employee based on an inquiry conducted without providing an opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice. However, contractual employees are not entitled to automatic reinstatement upon the quashing of such orders.
Headnote:(A) Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Conducting an inquiry behind the back of the employee without granting an opportunity of hearing is a violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering the dismissal order liable to be quashed. (Para 5)
(B) Contractual Employment - Reinstatement - An employee appointed on a fixed-term contract basis is not entitled to reinstatement even if the dismissal order is quashed, though they remain eligible to apply for future appointments. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's services without providing an opportunity of hearing was legally sustainable.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to dismissal from service on grounds of lack of opportunity of hearing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. violation of natural justice quashes dismissal, but contractual status precludes reinstatement. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. formal disposal of the writ petition. (Para 6) |
NAFR
ANKIT KUMAR SINGH
Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH
Order On Board
1. The petitioner has challenged the order Annexures P/1 whereby, petitioner’s services has been dismissed against which petitioner has filed the appeal which has also been dismissed vide Annexure P/2. Hence, this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that services of the petitioner has been dismissed from the post of Rojgar Sahayak (Contract) without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and support the impugned orders.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection.
5. Admittedly, the inquiry was conducted, but it was done beyond the back of the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, Annexure P/1 & P/2 are quashed. Since, the appointment of the petitioner was on fixed term and on contract basis, he is not entitled for the reinstatement, however, he would be at liberty to make an application for fresh appointment, if any, in future.
6. With the aforesaid observation/direction the instant writ petition stands disposed off.
