Chattisgarh High Court
Devindra Kumar Patel vs State Of C.G. And Ors on 16 June, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No.3669 of 2010
Devindra Kumar Patel, S/o. Shri Dilchand Prashad
Patel, aged about 41 years, R/o. PostMura, Tahsil
Kharsia, DistrictRaigarh (CG) presently posted as
Assistant GradeIII, District Project Office, Rajeev
Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raigarh, DistrictRaigarh
(CG)
Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School
Education Department / Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, D.K.S.
Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)
2. Mission Director, State Project Office, Rajeev Gandhi
Shiksha Mission, Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur
(CG)
3. Collector & District Mission Director, Rajeev Gandhi
Shiksha Mission (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan), Raigarh,
DistrictRaigarh (CG)
4. Chief Executive officer & District Project Director,
Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan),
Raigarh, DistrictRaigarh (CG)
5. District Project Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha
Mission (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan), Raigarh, District
Raigarh (CG)
Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr.Manoj Paranjape, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Sunil Otwani, Addl.A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
16.6.2021
1. Proceedings of this matter have been takenup through
video conferencing.
2. The petitioner calls in question the order dated
25.6.2010 (Annexure P1) by which his services on the
post of Assistant Grade III on contract basis has been
terminated finding him guilty of misconduct.
3. Mr.Manoj Paranjape, learned counsel for the
petitioner, would submit that though the petitioner
was working on contractual basis since long, but he
was served with showcause notice dated 22.6.2010
(Annexure P7) alleging misconduct and irregularity in
performance of the duty which he has replied and
ultimately, by order dated 25.6.2010 (Annexure P1)
his services have been terminated w.e.f. 24.7.2010, as
such, the order is stigmatic and not simpliciter. Such
an order has been passed without holding an enquiry,
therefore, it is liable to be quashed. He would rely
upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
the matter of Rahul Tripathi v. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha
Mission, Bhopal1.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Sunil Otwani, learned Additional
Advocate General for respondent No.1/State, would
support the impugned order (Annexure P1) passed by
the respondentsauthorities. He would further submit
that since there is an allegation of misconduct
against the petitioner, his services has been
terminated in accordance with Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik
Shiksha Mission Regulations.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
considered their rival submissions made hereinabove
1 2001(3)MPLJ 616
and also went through the records with utmost
circumspection.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed
by order dated 22.8.95 (Annexure P3) on the post of
Assistant Grade III on contract basis in the office of
District Project Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha
Mission, Raigarh and he continued from time to time on
the basis of extension of one year contract, but this
time after serving showcause notice dated 22.6.10
(Annexure P7) he has been found guilty of misconduct
and his services have been directed to be terminated
w.e.f. 24.7.2010 after a period of one month as
required under Rule 14(ii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil
Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter called
as 'Rules of 2004').
7. Rule 14 (i) and (ii) of the Rules of 2004 states as
under:
"14. Other conditions:
(i) Persons appointed on contract shall be
governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Service
(Conduct) Rules, 1965.
(ii) During the course of appointment, either
of the parties may terminate the appointment,
by giving one month's notice in advance or
paying one month's salary in its place."
8. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions would
show that the persons appointed on contract shall be
governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Conduct)
Rules, 1965 and by virtue of Rule 14(ii) of the Rules
of 2004 during the course of appointment, either of
the parties may terminate the appointment, by giving
one month's notice in advance or paying one month's
salary in its place, as such, it is quite apparent
that this termination under Rule 14(ii) of the Rules
of 2004 would be termination simpliciter by giving one
month's notice in advance or payment one month's
salary in advance.
9. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Rahul
Tripathi (supra) has clearly held that even in
contractual appointment, if termination is punitive or
stigmatic, services of contract employee cannot be
terminated without holding an enquiry.
10. Reverting to the facts of the present case and
following the principle of law laid down by the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Rahul Tripathi (supra), it is
quite vivid that in the instant case, by order dated
25.6.10 (Annexure P1), the petitioner's services
sought to be terminated from 24.7.2010 is clearly
stigmatic or punitive on the basis of finding of
misconduct, which is not a termination simpliciter in
terms of Rule 14(ii) of the Rules of 2004, but the
petitioner's services has been terminated without
holding an enquiry in accordance with law particularly
when Rule 14(i) of the Rules of 2004 clearly speaks
that persons appointed on contract shall be governed
by the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules,
1965, as such, the petitioner's services could not
have been directed to be terminated after one month
without holding departmental enquiry, it is contrary
to Rule 14(ii) of the Rules of 2004 as well as the
decision rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Rahul Tripathi (supra).
11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.6.10
(Annexure P1) is hereby quashed. However, the
petitioner will not be entitled for any benefit on the
basis of this order as period of one year has already
been expired during the pendency of this writ
petition. However, this order will not bar the
respondents to appoint the petitioner, if any, on
contract basis, if he is eligible and in accordance
with law.
12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/
(Sanjay K.Agrawal)
Judge
B/
