1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4121 of 2018 Smt. Preeti Tiwari W/o Ratan Tiwari, Aged About 35 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Govt. Ayurvedic College, Raipur R/o C/o Vijay Shanker (Gouri Keshar Punj) House No. 779, Sunder Nagar, Behind Kishore Hotel, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Department Of Health, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director (Ayurved/ Ayush), Directorate, Ayurved Yog Evam Prakritik Chikitsa Unani Siddh Evam Homeopathy (Ayush), Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Parisar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPS No. 2697 of 2018 Smt. Preeti Tiwari W/o Ratan Tiwari, Aged About 35 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Govt. Ayurvedic College, Raipur R/o C/o Vijay Shanker (Gouri Keshar Punj) House No. 779, Sunder Nagar, Behind Kishore Hotel, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Department Of Health, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director (Ayurved/ Ayush), Directorate, Ayurved / Ayush), Directorate, Ayurved Yog Evam Prakritik Chikitsa Unani Siddh Evam Homeopathy (Ayush), Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Parisar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Director, Govt. Ayurved College, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 4 - Dr. G.R. Chaturvedi, Inquiry Officer/ Professor Anatomy Govt. Ayurvedic College, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. B. N. Mishra, Advocate with Mr. Ganesh Burman, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18/08/2025 1. In WPS No. 2697 of 2018, the petitioner has challenged the article of charge dated 23.03.2015 and the show cause notice dated 29.01.2018 issued by respondent No. 2. 2. In WPS No. 4121 of 2018, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to confirm her services with effect from 26.09.2010 upon completion of her two-year probation period. 3. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a staff nurse on probation for a period of two years vide order dated 19.9.2008. She was granted permission to appear in the B.Sc final year examination for the academic year 2008–09 by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 14.1.2009 pursuant to her application dated 08.12.2008. The petitioner moved an application on 11.10.2010 before respondent No. 3 seeking permission to pursue M.Sc (Geology) in the academic session 2010-11. Respondent No. 3 failed to take any decision on the said application; therefore, the petitioner took admission in the Government Science College for the academic session 2010 and 2011. She completed her post graduation thereafter, and an anonymous complaint was received on 15.12.2012 in the office of respondent No. 2 to the effect that petitioner had pursued her post graduation while 3 serving as a Staff Nurse, and no government servant can pursue education and job simultaneously without obtaining permission from the department or without taking the education leave. 4. Dr. Veena Mishra conducted a preliminary enquiry and found the allegations to be true vide the enquiry report dated 25/27.11.2014. The respondent initiated a regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner, and an enquiry report was submitted on 3.1.2018, wherein the allegations were found proved, and thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.03.2015. The petitioner has challenged the enquiry report, as well as the show cause notice, by filing this petition. 5. In WPS/4121/2018, the petitioner has stated that she was appointed to the post of staff nurse on probation for a period of 2 years on 19.9.2008, but till date, her services have not been confirmed, despite completion of the probation period. It is also stated that no enquiry was pending against the petitioner, and her ACRs were good/very good between 2008 to 2014. The petitioner has prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider her claim for confirmation of services on completion of two years probation period with effect from 26.9.2010 and to release the increments accordingly. 6. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would argue that the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner is vague as the allegations made do not constitute misconduct under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. It is further submitted that the respondents have failed to demonstrate how the petitioner has violated the Rules. He would contend that an anonymous complaint was made, and pursuant to that, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner, but the complainant has not been examined. Therefore, the allegations made in the complaint would lose their validity. 4 7. It is also argued that the petitioner had moved an application on 11.10.2010 seeking permission to appear in M.Sc (Geology) for the academic year 2010–11, but no response was given by the authority concerned, i.e., respondent No. 3; therefore, she took admission in M.Sc (Geology). He would further submit that there is no allegation that she did not discharge her duties properly or attend the required number of classes in the college. He would also submit that the petitioner passed the examination with the first division, and thereafter, a disgruntled person made a frivolous complaint to the effect that no government employee can pursue regular studies; however, pursuing higher studies is not misconduct under the service rules. He would pray to quash the article of charge and the enquiry report. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the matter of Anant R. Kulkarni versus Y.P. Education Society, 2013 (6) SCC 515. 8. With regard to WPS 4121/2018, he would submit that the petitioner has completed two years of probation period on 26.09.2010, but till date, her services have not been confirmed without sufficient cause. He would argue that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose and submit that the petitioner is trying to claim undue advantage on the pretext of pursuing higher studies without any approval from the competent authority or on the basis of deemed permission, but such a concession is not available to the petitioner. It is further submitted that according to the circular dated 22.09.1961 and 13.7.1972 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, General Administration Department, the working employees of the state government have to obtain prior permission from the competent authority to pursue higher education. It is contended that no permission was obtained by the petitioner, and she was a regular 5 student in the college, and thus she contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i, ii, iii), Rule 3(a), and 3(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965. It is also submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, and thereafter an enquiry was initiated. It is also argued that the petitioner participated in the enquiry, and there is no allegation of procedural lapses. It is contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. With regard to WPS No. 4121 of 2018, the state counsel would submit that as the enquiry is pending consideration against the petitioner, her claim for confirmation cannot be considered. 11.Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 12.The petitioner, who was appointed as a staff nurse on probation for a period of two years on 19.9.2008, sought permission from respondent No. 3 to pursue M.Sc (Geology) in the academic session 2010-11, and the application in this regard was moved on 11.10.2010. Respondent No. 3 failed to respond to the said application moved by the petitioner, and thereafter she took admission. She completed her course. An enquiry was initiated against the petitioner pursuant to an anonymous complaint dated 15.12.2012. The article of charge was issued on 23.03.2015, which reads as under:- “संचालनालय आदेश क्रमांक स्था/अराज/2008/3572,दिदेनाक 19.9.2008 द्वारा संश्री प्रीदि दिवारा क स्टाफ नासं क पदे परा दिनायदि" क जकरा शसंकय आयवा#दे मांहादिवाद्यालय दिचादिकत्संलय रायपरा मां' पदेस्था दिकय गय। संश्री दिवारा द्वारा दिदेनाक 27.9.2008 क* कय भारा ग्रहाण दिकय गय। संश्री प्रीदि दिवारा, स्टाफ नासं शसंकय संवा मां' दिनायदिमां रूप सं कय रा राहा हा/ए वार्ष 2010 सं 2012 क मांध्य शसंकय नागज ना स्नाक*त्तरा दिवाज्ञाना मांहादिवाद्यालय रायपरा मां' एमां. एसं.सं. एसं.सं. (भा5गभा दिवाज्ञाना) दिवार्षय मां' दिनायमां दिवारूद्ध दिनायदिमां छात्रा क रूप मां' अध्ययनारा राहा9 था संश्री दिवारा ना एमां.एसं.सं.प्रीथामां संमांस्टारा क पराक्षा दिदेसंम्बरा 2010 मां' दिद्वाय 6 संमांस्टारा क पराक्षा ज5ना 2011, मां' =य संमांस्टारा क पराक्षा दिदेसंम्बरा 2011 मां' एवा चाथा संमांस्टारा क पराक्षा ज5ना 2012 मां' उत्तण क। उ" अवाधि@ मां' दिनायदिमां शसंकय संवाक क रूप मां' प्रीदिमांहा वाना भा प्रीप्त दिकय हाB। इसं प्रीकरा संश्री दिवारा ना छा०ग० धिसंदिवाल संवा (आचाराण) दिनायमां, 1965 क दिनायमां 3(1) (एक) (दे*) (ना), 3-क. (ग) क स्पष्ट रूप सं उल्लघंना करा गभारा कदेचाराण क क= त्य दिकय हाB, जBसं दिक दिवास्= दिवावाराण अदिभाकथाना पत्राक मां' देश य गय हाB।” 13. According to the allegations made in the Article of Charge, the petitioner pursued M.Sc (Geology) examination - first semester in the month of December 2010, second semester in the month of June 2011, third semester in December 2011, and fourth semester in June 2012, as a regular student. At the same time, she received a salary from the department, and the conduct of the petitioner is stated to be in contravention of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1965, states that every government servant shall maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a government servant. Rule 3(a)(c) of the Rules, 1965, states that no government servant shall do anything which is unbecoming or indisciplined. 14. In the present case, the respondents have not explained as to how the integrity and devotion of the petitioner towards her duties are doubtful. Further, it is also not demonstrated as to how the petitioner is not suitable as a government servant. The reasons assigned by the respondent authorities in the article of charge and in the enquiry report are that the petitioner, without obtaining permission of the competent authority, pursued her studies. The conduct of the petitioner may be denoted as indiscipline, as she pursued her studies, particularly when her application was pending and it has not been decided by the authorities. The respondent authorities were fully aware of the fact that the petitioner was pursuing higher studies, as her application seeking 7 permission was pending consideration. 15. The State, in their return, have not explained as to how the act of the petitioner would fall within the definition of misconduct. 16. The word "misconduct" has not been defined in the Rules, 1965, but in legal terms, ‘misconduct’ refers to improper, illegal, or unethical behaviour that violates established rules, standards, or duties. In the present case, it is not alleged that she committed any misconduct during the course of her employment or contravened any of the norms or standards at her workplace. The conduct of the petitioner may be an irregularity, but it does not amount to misconduct within the purview of the Rules, 1965. 17. The High Court of Madras in the matter of J. Christy Malarvizhi v. the Chief Educational Officer (WP (MD) No. 30549 of 2023 dated 21.12.2023 in para 3 held as under:- ”3. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.1124 of 2023, dated 24.07.2023 /The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary), College Road, Chennai-6 and Others Vs. S. Vasugi and Another/in paragraph No.3 while considering the grant of incentive increment for higher qualification has held as follows: "3. .....It is true that there are several Government Order which have insisted the requirement of permission of the educational authorities for a teacher to undergo higher education. It is to be noted that the payment of incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification is to encourage the teachers to acquire higher qualification so that the quality of education will be higher. It may be true that the teacher while in service will have to obtain prior permission as per the Government Orders. Further it is to be noted that acquiring higher qualification while in service is not prohibited and it is only regulated. In such circumstances, acquiring higher qualification while in service without the permission is only an irregularity and that will not entitle the respondents to reject the benefit to the 8 teachers." 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anant R. Kulkarni (supra), has held that charges in a departmental enquiry must be specific and clear, and vague allegations which do not constitute misconduct cannot be sustained. The relevant paras 16 & 17 are reproduced as under:- “16. Where the charge-sheet is accompanied by the statement of facts and the allegations are not specific in the charge-sheet, but are crystal clear from the statement of facts, in such a situation, as both constitute the same document, it cannot be held that as the charges were not specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. Thus, nowhere should a delinquent be served a charge-sheet, without providing to him, a clear, specific and definite description of the charge against him. When statement of allegations are not served with the charge-sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated, as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The evidence adduced should not be perfunctory; even if the delinquent does not take the defence of, or make a protest that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated, for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. What is required to be examined is whether the delinquent knew the nature of accusation. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. (Vide State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao16, Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, U.P. SRTC v. Ram Chandra Yadav18, Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar19 and Anil Gilurker bv. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (2011)14SCC 379. 17. The purpose of holding an enquiry against any person is not only with a view to establish the charges levelled against him or to impose a penalty, but is also conducted with the object of such an enquiry recording the truth of the matter, and in that sense, the outcome of an enquiry may either result in establishing or vindicating his stand, and hence result in his exoneration. Therefore, fair action 9 on the part of the authority concerned is a paramount necessity.” 19. The allegations in the charge sheet should be specific. Perusal of the charge sheet would show that the petitioner committed misconduct by pursuing higher studies. 20. Considering the facts discussed above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Madras, I am of the opinion that the Articles of Charge dated 23.3.2015 and the enquiry report dated 29.1.2018 are not sustainable in the eyes of the law; accordingly, both are hereby quashed. 21. As the articles of charge and enquiry report have already been quashed, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for confirmation of her services on completion of the probation period. 22. The entire exercise shall be completed by the authorities within a period of 60 days. 23. Both petitions accordingly stand disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim