Chattisgarh High Court
Navin Pashine vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11219
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
AVINASH
AVINASH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.03.14
10:11:14
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5968 of 2023
Navin Pashine S/o. Shri Krishna Kumar Pashine, Aged About 33 Years R/o.
House No. 500. Street No. 3 Ward No. 21 Sindhiya Nagar Durg, District - Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner.
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Principal, Government Vishvanath Yadav Tamaskar Autonomous College
Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Convener, Enquiry Team, Government Vishvanath Yadav Tamaskar
Autonomous College Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents.
For Petitioner : Shri Mo. Naqeeb, Advocate.
For State/Respondents : Shri Ujjawal Choubey, PL.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/03/2026 2
1. Challenge in this Writ Petition has been made to the order dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No.2, whereby petitioner has been terminated from his services as his work was not found satisfactory.
2. Following reliefs have been sought by the petitioner:-
1. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent the respondents to quash the impugned order dated 02/08/2023.
2. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner into the services.
3. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.
3. Necessary facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Data Entry Operator in Govt. V.Y. T. Auto College Durg (C.G.). He was appointed as Full Time Data Entry Operator in the year 2011 dated 05.12.2011 by the order of Principal Govt. V.Y. T. Auto College Durg (C.G.). That, in the Year 2020 the salary of the petitioner was reduced without any reason by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has moved several representation before the authorities for restoring his previous salary but Respondent Authorities care not to act on the representation. Thereafter, on 23/01/2023 the petitioner moved the High Court against this inaction by preferring a writ petition which was registered as W.P. (S) No. 819/2023 which was disposed off with the direction to the respondent authorities to take decision upon the grievances of the petitioner. That, On 20/04/2023 the Petitioner 3 was served with the show cause notice making baseless allegation about tampering with the attendance register. Petitioner has rebutted the show cause notice made to him. On 12-05-2023 The Principal rejecting the reply of the Petitioner issued a warning letter to him to not repeat the same in future. That on 14/06/2023 the petitioner has filed the contempt petition against the Respondent No. 02 for non compliance of the court order. That On 10/07/2023 the Respondent No.02 again started inquiry upon the same issue which has already been decided by him though the order formed the inquiry team to enquire about the same allegation in which has already been decided by the Respondent No. 02 (principal) in earlier occasion this amounts to de novo enquiry which is impermissible in service jurisprudence. The language of the impugned show cause notice suggest that respondent authorities are carrying on investigation with pre determined mind wherein the guilt of the employee is already ascertained. The inquiry team has conducted the enquiry in extremely biased manner wherein the guilt of the petitioner was already determined. The Petitioner has approached the inquiry team and requested in writing to give documents and detailed charge sheet on the basis of which the enquiry team is conducting enquiry so that the petitioner can give his detailed reply in writing. The Request of the petitioner has been denied by the enquiry team. That, On 25/07/2023 the petitioner again approached the inquiry team to provide the details of the show cause notice as the show cause notice is unclear and does not mentions about the specification of the 4 allegations and also requested for the opportunity to cross examine. However the respondent No. 03 closed the investigation on the said date without acting upon any request of the petitioner. That, On 02/08/2023 the Respondent. No. 02 passed an order in mechanical manner wherein the services of the petitioner has been ended. Hence the petitioner is preferring this writ petition against arbitrary and illegal action of respondent authorities. Hence the petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent authorities in a mechanical manner which reflects arbitrariness on the part of respondent authorities. He submits that petitioner has been discharging his duties very sincerely for more than 10 years; copy of experience certificate issued to the petitioner on completing 10 years of service has also been annexed with the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from perusal of impugned order, it would show that stigma has been imposed on the petitioner without conducting proper enquiry as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, further despite of request of petitioner, Respondent No.3 did not provide the documents to the petitioner and opportunity for cross examination. Hence, this Writ Petition may be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory as such, he has been terminated from the services.
5
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition.
7. From perusal of the appointment order dated 05.12.2011 of the petitioner, it seems that petitioner was appointed on the post of Data Entry Operator (temporary basis) and working in the department since 05.12.2011. Thereafter, petitioner has been terminated from the services vide impugned order dated 02.08.2023.
8. Upon perusal of impugned order, it appears that stigmatic order has been passed while levelling allegations against the petitioner that he was negligent and showed indifference to work and ultimately work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and he was terminated from the services.
9. In the matter of Swati Priaydarshani v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2139 decided on 22.08.2024 in which the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to the effect that even in case of contractual appointment, if any stigmatic order is to be passed, it may be passed only after holding proper enquiry and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned delinquent/employee. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 4969/2015 (Digambar Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 22.08.2024 held that in order to pass a stigmatic or cumulative order, the concerned authorities are required to hold a departmental enquiry after giving due opportunity of hearing to delinquent/ employee.
6
10. The view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini (supra) goes to show that before passing any stigmatic order for removal of any employee from service, a departmental enquiry is required to be done. In para 34 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"34. It is profitable to refer to what five learned Judges of this Court laid down in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 5:
"28. The position may, therefore, be summed up as follows: Any and every termination of service is not a dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. A termination of service brought about by the exercise of a contractual right is not per se dismissal or removal, as has been held by this Court in Satish Chander Anand v. Union of India [(1953) 1 SCC 420: 1953 SCR 655].
Likewise the termination of service by compulsory retirement in terms of a specific rule regulating the conditions of service is not tantamount to the infliction of a punishment and does not attract Article 311(2), as has also been held by this Court in Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1954) 1 SCC 572: (1955) 1 SCR 26]. In either of the two above mentioned cases the termination of the service did not carry with it the penal consequences of loss of pay, or allowances under Rule 52 of the Fundamental Rules. It is true that the misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification may be the motive or the inducing factor which influences the Government to take action under the terms of the contract of employment or the specific service rule, nevertheless, if a right exists, under the contract or the rules, to 7 terminate the service the motive operating on the mind of the Government is, as Chagla, C.J., has said in Shrinivas Ganesh v. Union of India, [58 Bom LR 673: AIR 1956 Bom 455] wholly irrelevant. In short, if the termination of service is founded on the right flowing from contract or the service rules then, prima facie, the termination is not a punishment and carries with it no evil consequences and so Article 311 is not attracted. But even if the Government has. by contract or under the rules, the right to terminate the employment without going through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to punish the servant and if the termination of service is sought to be founded on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency other disqualification, then it is or a punishment and the requirements of Article 311 must be complied with. As already stated if the servant has got a right to continue in the post, then, unless the contract of employment or the rules provide to the contrary, his services cannot be terminated otherwise than for misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other good and sufficient cause. A termination of the service of such a servant on such grounds must be a punishment and, therefore, a dismissal or removal within Article 311, for it operates as a forefeiture of his right and he is visited with the evil consequences of loss of pay and allowances. It puts an indelible stigma on the officer affecting his future career. A reduction in rank likewise may be by way of punishment or it may be an innocuous thing. If the government servant has a right to a particular rank, then the very reduction from that rank will operate as a penalty, for he will then lose the emoluments and 8 privileges of that rank. If, however, he has no right to the particular rank, his reduction from an officiating higher rank to his substantive lower rank will not ordinarily be a punishment. But the mere fact that the servant has no title to the post or the rank and the Government has, by contract, express or implied, or under the rules, the right to reduce him to a lower post does not mean that an order of reduction of a servant to a lower post or rank cannot in any circumstances be a punishment. The real test for determining whether the reduction in such cases is or is not by way of punishment is to find out if the order for the reduction also visits the servant with any penal consequences. Thus if the order entails or provides for the forfeiture of his pay or allowances or the loss of his seniority in his substantive rank or the stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion, then that circumstance may indicate that although in form the Government had purported to exercise its right to terminate the employment or to reduce the servant to a lower rank under the terms of the contract of employment or under the rules, in truth and reality the Government has terminated the employment as and by way of penalty The use of the expression "terminate" or "discharge" is not conclusive. In spite of the use of such innocuous expressions, the court has to apply the two tests mentioned above, namely, (1) whether the servant had a right to the post or the rank, or (2) whether he has been visited with evil consequences of the kind hereinbefore referred to? If the case satisfies either of the two tests then it must be held that the servant has been punished and the termination of his service must be taken as a dismissal or removal from service or the 9 reversion to his substantive rank must be regarded as a reduction in rank and if the requirements of the rules and Article 311, which give protection to government servant have not been complied with, the termination of the service or the reduction in rank must be held to be wrongful and in violation of the constitutional right of the servant."
11. Taking into consideration the entire facts situation of the case in light of the aforementioned judgments, this Court is of the view that impugned order dated 02.08.2023 deserves to be quashed/set aside as the same was passed without holding proper enquiry and without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
12.Accordingly, impugned order dated 02.08.2023 is quashed/set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. Petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service on the post entitled for.
13.However, respondent authorities are at liberty to initiate enquiry against the petitioner after affording due and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash