1 2025:CGHC:260 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4759 of 2021 • Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ram Kripal Sahu aged about 34 Years Working as Data Entry Operator at Janpad Panchayat- Sonhat, Zilla Panchyat- Korea, P.S.- Sonhat, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Panchayat and Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector Korea District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 3. Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayat Korea, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Sonhat, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 5. Program Officer- Sonhat Janpad Panchayat Sonhat, District Korea Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2/ State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No. 3 to 5 : Mr Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02/01/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to the present case. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may please to quash the impugned order dated 29-06-2018 (ANNEXURE P-1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat Korea, District Korea (C.G.). 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner according to the proposal of administrative committee of the Janpad Panchayat Sonhat for extension the service of the petitioner (ANNEXURE P/2). 10.4 That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 3 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Data Entry Operator and was posted at Janpad Panchayat -Sonhat, in Zilla Panchayat Korea, District Korea. The petitioner was initially appointed as Data Entry Operator for Janpad Panchayat Sonhat, by the Collector, Korea, thereafter service of the petitioner has been extended every year. During the tenure of service the petitioner worked sincerely and has unblemished service record. But despite all this the respondents have passed the impugned order of removal without giving opportunity of being heard and the said action of the respondent is illegal arbitrary, and against the rules and principles of natural justice. The impugned order dated 29-06-2018 has been passed, without jurisdiction and impugned order passed by the respondent No. 3 is violation of the principal of natural justice the same has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without departmental enquiry of the petitioner, he has been terminated from the service. The appointing authority of the petitioner is Collector but without authority & jurisdiction the impugned order has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Korea. After issuance of the impugned order petitioner has submitted his grievance before the respondents' authorities on the representation of the administrative committee of the Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat has passed proposal for 4 extension the service of the petitioner on the post of Data Entry Operator on 24.08.2018 and sent the same to the respondent No.4, but same has been not considered. Thereafter the proposal for extension the service of the petitioner on the post of Data Entry Operator of administrative committee of the Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat petitioner has submitted his grievance before the respondents' authorities but the same has been not considered by the respondent authority. The impugned order passed by the respondent No-3 is illegal erroneous and contrary to law the respondent authority before passing the termination order has not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner neither the any document nor the copies of the any material/documents were supplied to the petitioner, even they have not been afforded any opportunity of hearing. The impugned termination order dated 29-06-2018 passed by the respondent authority is violative of the principal of natural justice and term and condition of the appointment order dated 20.03.2012 as well as C.G Civil Service (Contract appointment) Rule and also without jurisdiction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been removed from the services as Data Entry Operator without any reason. However, subsequently when he has filed this petition it was disclosed by respondent No. 3 to 5 5 that there are some reports against the petitioner due to which the petitioner has been removed from the services. Since, the petitioner has been removed from the services with some stigma leveling allegation against him as such the petitioner should have been given opportunity of hearing and thereafter afford an opportunity of hearing if any order is required to be passed, then it should be passed but in the present matter no procedures have been followed and without there being any reason informing the petitioner about discontinuation of his service, the petitioner has been terminated from the post of Data Entry Operator. Hence, this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 5 have submitted that since it is a contractual appointment, therefore, no reasons are required to be assigned. The contractual employee can be removed at any point of time. 5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the State is not a contesting party. The contesting parties have already submitted their reply and they are supporting the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 5. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 7. From the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that specific order of removing the 6 petitioner was issued/served upon him but without any reason, however, after completion of the period of 01 year, the period of service is extended further from the year 2012. On the said date, petitioner has continuously served his services though on contract basis which was extended time to time from 2012 to 2018. It is also appearing that, when petitioner approached the authorities asking for reasons as to why his service is not being continued, nothing has been stated to him. 8. As argued by learned counsel for the respondents, contract appointment of the petitioner on the date of discontinuation of service is governed by Rules, 2012. Rule 15 of the Rules, 2012 deals with other conditions, Rule 15 (3) provides for preparation of Confidential Report/Performance Appraisal Report (P.A.R.) of a person appointed in contract to be considered for extending the contract period. Rule 15 (3) is extracted below for ready reference:- “15 [(3) Confidential Report/P.A.R. (Performance Appraisal Report) of the person, appointed on contract basis, shall be recorded and for extending the period of contractual service, it is mandatory that his/her's Confidential Report/P.A.R. (Performance Appraisal Report) is assessed as Excellent or Very Good, in case he/she is to be considered for further 7 appointment on contract basis.]" 9. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Humendra Kumar Pawade Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. in Writ Appeal No. 813/2018 has observed thus:- "4.After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are convinced that the order of discontinuation of contract appointment of the appellant deserves to be quashed for the reason that Rule 15 (3) of the Rules, 2012 itself provides that confidential report of the person, appointed on contract, shall be recorded so that his work may be assessed in case he is to be considered for appointment on contract basis for the next year and for such continuation the ACR/PAR should be 'excellent' or 'very good. Once the Rule itself provides that the ACR or PAR would form the basis for according benefit of extension of contract employment it goes without saying that a contract employee has a right to represent against the ACR which may work adverse to his interest if the same is not of required standard as laid down under Rule 15 (3) of the Rules, 2012. Even if contract employee is not entitled to hold the post, if the Rules itself provide for consideration of ACR or PAR as a measure to assess the suitability, the law laid down by 8 the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt (supra) would apply with full force for the reason that if an employee is entitled to any benefit out of the ACR or PAR the same has to be communicated without which it cannot be considered against the employee. 6. It is is also to bear in mind that the Supreme Court has settled, in 'n' number of cases that when an authority takes a decision which may have civil consequences and affects the rights of a person, the principles of natural justice would at once come into play. (See: State of Maharashtra v Public Concern for Governance Trust and Others)." 10. From the aforementioned facts and perusal of Rule 15 of the Rules, 2012, it is appearing that it was mandatory upon the respondents to write the ACRs which can be considered for extending the period of contract and evaluation of the services/work done by the petitioner. In the present case, the respondents have not brought on record that the petitioner was supplied the copy of ACRs time to time of each year. The order of non- extension of his services is having the civil consequences, more so, when the non-extension is on the ground of leveling of allegations against the petitioner of negligence in discharging his services and remaining absent from service. 9 11. Upon perusal of the appointment order itself it seems that though it is a contractual appointment, however, the appointment order goes to show that the Annual Confidential Report is required to be recorded for further extension of contractual appointment and the services rendered by the employee could be evaluated according to condition No. 7 of the appointment order itself. When the ACRs are being recorded then in such condition if anything is found against the petitioner the petitioner is required to be noticed and a reply is required to be taken so that he may explain the allegations made against him. In the present matter, nothing has been done by the respondent authorities. 12. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as Audi Alteram-Partem Rule it says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation, in the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against. It is after all an approved Rule of fair play and one of the most important principles of nature justice. The concept has gained significance 10 and shades with time. The petitioner is belonging to other backward class he has been not given the opportunity according to the circular dated 27.11.2012. 13. Division Bench of this Court has dealt with identical matter in WA No. 813/2018 (Humendra Kumar Pawade vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors) and has quashed the termination order only on the basis that the authorities have not considered the principles of natural justice and they have not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 14. A Co-ordinate Single Bench of this Court has also passed an order in WPS No. 4689/2019 (Dev Singh Parmar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) relying upon the judgment of Division Bench in which the opportunity of hearing was not granted. 15. Accordingly, in light of aforesaid judgment and further looking to the fact that some stigma has been passed against the petitioner though he was not granted any opportunity of hearing in such condition even after the petitioner has been appointed on contractual basis he should have been given opportunity of hearing which has not been given to him. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.06.2018 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. However, liberty is granted to the authorities to process further, if so advised. 11 17. With the aforementioned observation, writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat