Dr. Prince Jaiswal vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3104 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Dr. Prince Jaiswal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 June, 2025

                                                                 1/4




                                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
          Digitally signed
          by ALOK
ALOK   SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
       2025.06.26
          19:29:43 +0530
                                                      WPS No. 4420 of 2025

                                      DR. PRINCE JAISWAL versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH


                                                            Order Sheet


                         18/06/2025           Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                              Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A. for the Resp. No. 1

                                       and 3/State.

                                              Mr. C.J.K. Rao, learned counsel for the Resp. No. 2.

                                              Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the

                                       Respondent. No. 2 prayed and are granted three weeks' time to

file reply in the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also undertakes to take

necessary steps to implead the complainant as well as the

concerned University as the respondent in the petition.

Heard on I.A. No. 1, which is an application for the grant

of interim relief.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner has been removed from service, violating the

provisions of the policy of Human Resources issued for the year

2018, which is still applicable to the petitioner's case. The

petitioner is removed from service on the basis that he submitted

his forged mark sheet of Master of Physical health, from

Sabarmati University, Ahmedabad (Gujrat), whereas the

Collector Surajpur has enquired the matter and made

correspondence from the Sabarmati University (formerly Calorx

Teachers' University), in which the university has verified the

genuiness of the mark sheet of the petitioner. Learned counsel

for the petitioner referred to page 120 of the petition. He would

further submit that the concerned authority has also

recommended for closure of the enquiry against the petitioner,

but on the complaint made by one Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, the

authority again started the enquiry and removed the petitioner

from service. The removal of the petitioner is also against the

service conditions under which he was appointed. The petitioner

was appointed to the post of District RMNCH+A Consultant

(National Health Mission) and posted at the office of the Chief

Medical and Health Officer, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) on

a contract basis vide order dated 29-05-2015. The petitioner

cannot be removed from service without affording an opportunity

of hearing, and the impugned order of removal is stigmatic order.

His services are satisfactory, and no any departmental

proceedings were initiated against him. The District RMNCH+A

still requires his services, and by removal order of the petitioner,

he would be in irreparable loss. Therefore, the effect and

operation of the impugned order may be stayed. He would rely

on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

matter of "U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. V.

Brijesh Kumar & Anr.", (S.L.P. (C) No. 10546 of 2019, decided

on 28-08-2024) and 2023 SCC online J&K 1095 "Feroz

Ahmad Sheikh and Ors. v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors.".

On the other hand, an objection has been raised by the

respondents that the complainant and the concerned University

have not been made the party respondents in the petition,

though they are the necessary parties. Learned counsel

appearing for the state as well as the respondent No. 2 opposes

and submitted that the petitioner was a contractual employee

and he can be removed at any time when his appointment is

found to be based on forged documents. While he was in service

at District RMNCH+A Consultant, he obtained an appointment as

District Programme Manager on the basis of the forged mark

sheet purportedly issued by Sabarmati University, Ahmedabad

(formerly Calorx Teachers' University, Ahmedabad). Despite

giving the opportunity of hearing, he could not satisfy the

genuineness of the mark sheets submitted by him, and only

then, the authorities decide to remove the petitioner from service.

Sufficient opportunity of hearing has been provided to him. There

is no violation of any rules of circular, and therefore, he is not

entitled to any protection. They would also rely on the judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 (10)

SCC 311 "State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta".

Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and

documents annexed with the petition, considering that the

petitioner is in contractual employment and there is an allegation

of securing appointment based on forged documents, and also in

view of the judgement of Suman Dutta (supra), this court is not

inclined to grant interim relief to the petitioner. The judgment

cited by learned counsel for the petitioner does not help him, as

the facts and consideration of those cases are different from the

present case. Therefore, the application I.A. No. 1 is hereby

rejected.

The respective respondents shall ensure the filing of the

reply within the stipulated period.

List the case immediately after 03 weeks.

Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

Alok