Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Mamta Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 January, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1/4
2025:CGHC:3610
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 4175 of 2019
1 - Smt. Mamta Singh W/o Shri Bindeshwari Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Village
Janakpur, Near Old Hospital Post Janakpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District :
Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family
Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur,Chhattisgarh
2 - Director (Nursing) Directorate Of Health And Family Welfare, Indrawati Bhawan,
New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Zonal Joint Director Health Service Sarguja Zone, Ambikapur, District Sarguja
Chhattisgarh.,District:Surguja(Ambikapur),Chhattisgarh
4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer District Koriya (Baikunthpur) Chhattisgarh.,
District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
____________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate.
For State : Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, PL.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
21/01/2025
1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-
"10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call the entire records relating to the case of the
Digitally
NISHA signed by
DUBEY NISHA petitioner.
DUBEY
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a suitable writ and quashed the order dated
1.5.2019 (Annexure-P/1) and further pleased to quash
the order of termination dated 28.11.2016(Annexure-
P/2).
10.3 That ,the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a
writ, in the nature of mandamus and direct the
respondent to reinstate the petitioner in her service.
10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems,
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case and cost of the petition."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
engaged as (Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife ) A.N.M. at Primary Health
Centre, Bharatpur(Janakpur), District-Koriya, Chhattisgarh in the year
1988 she continuously worked on the said post. In the year 2007,
based on the complaint, FIR was registered against her for alleged
commission of offence under Sections 304 & 314 of Indian Penal
Code(for short 'IPC'). After completion of investigation, charge-sheet
was also filed and after completion of trial, petitioner was convicted
vide judgment of conviction dated 7.5.2016, wherein the petitioner was
convicted for the offence under Section 304-II of IPC for a period of 7
years and under Section 314 of IPC for a period of 5 years. After
passing of a judgment of conviction, respondent No.4 has passed an
order terminating the service of the petitioner without conducting any
departmental enquiry. Order of conviction by the trial Court in criminal
case was challenged in an appeal before the High Court. Appellate
Court vide order dated 06.02.2019(Annexure-P/4) had stayed the
judgment of conviction. Petitioner has also preferred an appeal before
the appellate authority, however, when no decision was taken, he has
filed the writ petition bearing WPS No.1970 of 2019, which was
disposed of directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal
taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of case and also
the subsequent developments, however, the appellate authority vide
Annexure-P/1 has dismissed the appeal without considering that the
judgment of conviction against the petitioner was stayed by the
appellate authority, therefore, the decision taken in the appeal is
erroneous.
3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by counsel for
petitioner and would submit that the appellate authority has assigned
the reasons for rejecting the appeal. In the order passed in WPS
No.1970 of 2019, there is no specific direction for reinstatement of the
petitioner, hence, decision taken by the appellate authority does not
call for any interference. She also contended that the order of stay has
been passed in criminal appeal is dated 6.2.2019 whereas the
petitioner was terminated from service on 28.11.2016, hence, also
there is no error in the order impugned Annexure-P/1 dismissing the
appeal against the order of termination.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
enclosed along with the petition.
5. Perusal of the Annexure-P/1 would show that the petitioner has
enclosed the copy of the letter of State Government dated 6.4.2019
addressing to the respondent No.2 clearly mentioning that there is no
specific direction for reinstatement of the petitioner in the order passed
by the High Court. Copy of order passed by the High Court in WPS
No.1970 of 2019 is filed as Annexure-P/5. In the said writ petition also,
the same grounds is raised by the petitioner that as the order of
conviction has been stayed petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in
service. The said argument was not accepted by the Court and
observed thus:-
"This Court is not inclined to accept the said argument
of the petitioner for the simple reason that, the order of
termination was passed on 28.11.2018 and the
suspension of conviction was only after about 3 years
i.e. on 6.2.2019. Thus, on the date of termination, the
judgment of conviction was in operation."
6. From perusal of para-4 of the order dated 19.3.2019 in WPS No.1970
of 2019 would show that the Court considered the order of termination
to be 28.11.2016 and order of the stay of the judgment of conviction
was on 6.2.2019 after about 3 years.
7. Prayer made in this writ petition and considered by the appellate
authority has already been considered by the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in WPS No.1970 of 2019 as extracted above and once the
decision is taken by the co-ordinate Bench, it will not be proper for this
Court to consider the same ground again as argued by learned
counsel for the petitioner that he is entitled for reinstatement after
suspension of his conviction in earlier writ petition and rejected the
same.
8. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ
petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Nisha
