Ms Veena Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2559 of 2016 Ms. Veena Verma D/o Shri Sonchand Verma, aged about 26 years, Occupation Service (Pharmacist), R/o village Tilda Neovra, Tehsil Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.).
---Petitioner WPS No. 2538 of 2016 Yamendra Kumar Sahu S/o Geetaram Sahu, aged about 25 years, Occupation (Pharmacist), R/o village Madhaibhata, Post Office Madhaibhata, Block Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). ---Petitioner WPS No. 2460 of 2016
1. Abhishek Sharma S/o Shri Chhannulal Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o M I G - 596, Sector - 2, Deendyla Upadhyay Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Laxman Khelwar S/o Shri Tulsiram Khelwar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Mova, Ward No. 27, Near Shitla Mandir, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Roshan Kumar Manikpuri S/o Shri Ganesh Das Manikpuri, Aged About 31 Years, Village And Post Lawan, District Baloda Bazar Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh.
4. Nitin Dahariya S/o Shri Nemudas Dahariya, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Semradeeh, P. O. Mohra, District Baloda Bazar Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh.
5. Vikas Shukla S/o Shri Durga Prasad Shukla, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Qr. No. 24/ 117, Tarun Nagar, Pandritarai, Near, Lodhipara Chowk, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
6. Rupesh Kumar Pal S/o Shri Ramaiyya Pal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Near Water Tank, Gurunanak Ward, Bhatapara, District Baloda BazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh.
7. Smt. Sandhya Verma W/o Shri Ravikant Verma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Lafarge Colony, Rasedi, B- 34, Post Raseda, District Baloda BazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh.
8. Bheekham Sahu S/o Shri Ramkumar Sahu, Aged About 25 Years, Village And Post Sisdeori, Tehsil Palari, District Baloda BazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh.
9. Hemant Bhardwaj S/o Shri Ghansiram Bhardwaj, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village And Post Tarra Via- Mandhar Colony, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
10.Pankaj Kumar Madaria S/o Shri Kamal Narayan Madaria, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village And Post Guma, Grasim Vihar, Rawan, P. S. Suhela, District Baloda Bazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioners
WPS No. 1797 of 2017 Jagdish Prasad Banjare S/o Ganeshu Ram Banjare, aged about 37 years, R/o Bhaismuda, Post Bhandarpuri, PS Kharora, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.).
---Petitioner For respective :
Shri Jitendra Pali, Shri Abhishek Pandey, petitioners Advocates and Shri Aditya Bhardwaj on behalf of Shri B.D.Guru, Advocate.
For State :
Shri Dheeraj Wankhede, Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 06/10/2018 1.
These are the four Writ Petitions where the order under challenge is the order of termination dated 16/06/2016 passed by the Chief Medical Health Officer, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.).
2.
Since the facts and grounds raised by the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions and the stand of the respondents are identical, this Court proceeds to decide all these matters by this common judgment. 3.
The counsel appearing for the respective petitioners makes a submission before this Court that the same termination order in respect of the other similarly placed persons were subjected to challenge by way of
Writ Petitions before this Court and the Single Bench of this High Court had initially dismissed those Writ Petitions, but the division Bench of this Court while hearing the appeal against the dismissal of Writ Petition vide order dated 27/09/2017 has set-aside the said judgment of the Single Bench and have allowed the appeals vide judgment dated 24/09/2018. 4.
The copy of judgment of the Division Bench has been brought on record wherein in paragraphs 14, 15, 16 & 17, the division Bench of this Court while set-aside the judgment of the single Bench as also the order of termination dated 16/06/2016 passed by the CMHO, Balodabazar-Bhatapara has held as under:-
14. The issue is not about the principle. The issue is the "
manner and mechanism under which the whole exercise has been done. If the employee who is substantively appointed and have been confirmed under services were terminated on the basis of an enquiry in which they were never given an opportunity to participate and only a formality of show cause was issued to them on the basis of the three members Committee report, then in our opinion, it does not satisfy requirements of the rules of the natural justice or requirement under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
15. In the facts and circumstances, we therefore, hold the order of termination dated 16.06.2016 passed by the CMHO, Baloda Bazar as well as the order dated 27.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge upholding such decision of termination to be irrational and arbitrary and therefore, they deserve to be
set aside and are set aside. It goes without saying that all these Appellants will be reinstated in their services forthwith.
16. The respondents, however, are given liberty that they will issue individual notices and hold enquiry in relation to the appointments on the post so made of all these terminated employees and this exercise cannot be a collective exercise because the authorities will have to identify as to which appointment was irregular and which appointment was illegal in the enquiry. In the departmental proceeding to be held and on the findings thereon, the law will take its course. The said enquiry will be concluded preferably within a period of six months.
17. Before disposing these appeals, the Court also directs all the appellants that on the notice so given to them by the Appointing Authority who is said to be CMHO, Baloda Bazar, they will co- perate in the enquiry and will not unnecessarily delay the same on one pretext or the other."
5.
These factual matrix of the case as also the judgment of the division Bench and the case of the petitioners being identical is not disputed by the learned State counsel.
6.
In the given facts, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 16/06/2016 passed by CMHO, Balodabazar-Bhatpara in all these Writ Petitions also would not be sustainable in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court on 24/09/2018 in Writ Appeal No. 448/2017 and other connected appeals.
7.
The respondent/State in this case also would have same liberty as has been granted by the Division Bench in the aforesaid orders. 8.
Accordingly, all these Writ Petitions stands allowed. The impugned order of termination stands set aside in similar terms as ordered in WP No. 448/2017 decided on 24/09/2018.
Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Sumit JUDGE