Madhu Baghel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2016 Madhu Baghel W/o Shri Suraj Baghel, aged about 36 years, R/o Qtr. No. L 14, Street No. 5, Avani Vihar, Mowa, Thana Mowa, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Labour, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Director, Employee State Insurance Service, D/290-5 Taigore Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Insurance Medical Officer, Employee State Insurance Service, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For Appellant :

Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Deputy Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, J.

Judgment on Board Per Navin Sinha, Chief Justice 25/01/2016 1.

The present appeal arise from common order dated 28.9.2015 dismissing Writ Petition (S) No. 204 of 2015 and analogous cases (including Writ Petition (S) No. 6510 of 2014 by the present Appellant) declining to interfere with the order discharging the Appellant who was a probationer. 2.

IA No. 1 of 2015 has been filed to condone delay of 47 days in filing the appeal. Considering that similar appeals have been allowed already, delay is condoned.

3.

The questions of law involved for consideration have already been considered in detail by us in Writ Appeal No. 599 of 2015 disposed on 15.12.2015 holding that the initial enquiry was ex-parte in nature. The order of discharge

treating persons like the Appellant as probationer was found to be punitive and stigmatic in nature after lifting the veil, and that the final order was at complete variance with the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice because of which the impugned order of removal dated 19.11.2014 couched in innocuous language was set aside but without prejudice to the rights of the Respondents afresh in accordance with law.

4.

For like reasons as discussed in Writ Appeal No. 599 of 2015, the present appeal is also allowed but without prejudice to the rights of the Respondents afresh in accordance with law.

Sd/- Sd/- (Navin Sinha) (P. Sam Koshy) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Anu