(WPS No.3756/2025) 2026:CGHC:19077-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3756 of 2025 (Arising out of order dated 17-2-2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting: Bilaspur in Original Application No.203/283/2019) 1. Union of India, Through the General Manager, S.E.C.R., Bilaspur Zone, Zone Office, Bilaspur – 495004. 2. The Chief Mechanical Engineer, S.E.C.R., Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur – 495004. 3. The Chief Workshop Manager, Wagon Repair Shop, S.E.C.R., Raipur – 492001. 4. The Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer, Wagon Repair Shop, S.E.C.R., Raipur – 492001. ... Petitioners versus Manish Kumar Patel, S/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Patel, aged about 30 years, Ex. Trainee Skilled Artisan, WRS, SECR, Raipur, R/o Naya Para, Shiv Mandir, Near Kirti Nagar School, Sirgitti, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – 495001. ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General of India. For Respondent : Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate. Division Bench: - Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ. Order On Board (25/04/2026) SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.04.25 16:47:00 +0530 (WPS No.3756/2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The petitioners herein – Union of India and its instrumentalities, have called in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 17-2-2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the CAT’), Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting: Bilaspur in Original Application No.203/283/2019, by which the respondent’s original application has been allowed and the order of termination dated 17-6-2014 as also the order dated 15- 5-2015 passed by the appellate authority, have been quashed. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: - 3. The respondent herein was appointed as Trainee Skilled Artisan on compassionate ground. He remained unauthorizedly absent from duty from 1-3-2013 to 3-10-2013 and for unauthorized absence, he was issued with a notice to explain his unauthorized absence to which he did not submit reply despite notices having been issued leading to passing of the order dated 17-6-2014 by which he has been terminated from service without any benefits and leading to filing of original application before the CAT. The CAT by the impugned order allowed the original application filed by the respondent holding that it is not a case of termination simplicitor for unauthorized absence which can be treated as misconduct, but, however, no enquiry has been conducted, therefore, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of (WPS No.3756/2025) India1 finding that since the probationer would be entitled for benefit under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and since the respondent herein has been terminated on the ground of misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty, he could not be terminated without notice and as such, the matter has been remitted back to the petitioners herein to look afresh into the matter in accordance with law against which the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners herein. 4. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein/Union of India, would submit that the learned CAT is absolutely unjustified in granting the original application by passing the impugned order, it is a termination simplicitor, therefore, opportunity of holding departmental enquiry was not necessary. 5. Mr. B.P. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent herein, would support the impugned order and oppose the writ petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Admittedly, the respondent herein was appointed as Trainee Skilled Artisan on compassionate ground and he remained unauthorizedly absent from duty from 1-3-2013 to 3-10-2013 for which he was 1 AIR 1958 SC 36 (WPS No.3756/2025) served with notice to explain his unauthorized absence, but he did not respond to the show cause notice issued by the petitioners herein leading to his termination from service. As such, the respondent herein has been terminated on account of misconduct of remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty from 1-3-2013 to 3-10-2013 and therefore the principles of law laid down in Parshotam Lal Dhingra (supra) would apply wherein it has been held that even where the service of a probationer is sought to be terminated on misconduct, reasonable opportunity of hearing as provided in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India has to be granted to the probationer. 8. Thereafter, in the matter of The State of Bihar v. Gopi Kishore Prasad2, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have formulated a question, whether the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution are applicable to a probationer in the Bihar Subordinate Civil Service, who has been discharged as unsuitable on grounds of notoriety for corruption and unsatisfactory work in the discharge of his public duties. Their Lordships of the Constitution Bench have answered the said question in affirmative and held that Article 311(2) of the Constitution would also apply to a probationer, and observed as under: - “(6) It would thus appear that in the instant case, though the respondent was only a probationer, he was discharged from service really because the Government had, on enquiry, come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that he was unsuitable for the post he held on probation. This was clearly 2 AIR 1960 SC 689 (WPS No.3756/2025) by way of punishment and, therefore, he was entitled to the protection of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the respondent, being a mere probationer, could be discharged without any enquiry into his conduct being made and his discharge could not mean any punishment to him, because he had no right to a post. It is true that, if the Government came to the conclusion that the respondent was not a fit and proper person to hold a post in the public service of the State, it could discharge him without holding any enquiry into his alleged misconduct. If the Government proceeded against him in that direct way, without casting any aspersions on his honesty or competence, his discharge would not, in law, have the effect of a removal from service by way of punishment and he would, therefore, have no grievance to ventilate in any court. Instead of taking that easy course, the Government chose the more difficult one of starting proceedings against him and of branding him as a dishonest and an incompetent officer. He had the right, in those circumstances, to insist upon the protection of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. That protection not having been given to him, he had the right to seek his redress in court. It must, therefore, be held that the respondent had been wrongly deprived of the protection afforded by Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. His removal from the service, therefore, was not in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution.” 9. In that view of the matter, since the respondent herein was a probationer and he was sought to be terminated on the ground of misconduct of remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty from 1-3- 2013 to 3-10-2013, Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India would apply and he could not have been terminated without affording opportunity of hearing which the learned CAT has rightly noticed and granted the original application quashing the order of termination as also the order passed by the appellate authority. We do not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned passed by the learned CAT and accordingly, the order impugned passed by the learned CAT is hereby affirmed. Page 6 of 6 (WPS No.3756/2025) 10. In the result, the writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Soma