-1- 2025:CGHC:18092 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6223 of 2018 Aruna Patel D/o Panna Lal Patel Aged About 33 Years Presently Working As Data Entry Operation In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources Department, Sub Division No. 3, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Engineer Mahanadi Project, Water Resources Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.04.2025 1) The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.08.2018 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Data Entry Operator has been canceled based on an -2- enquiry report dated 10.12.2014 (Memo No. 3271/35-4/estab./2013). 2) Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Data Entry Operator in the Water Resources Department pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 2011. The petitioner participated in the selection process and secured 66.79 marks. She was selected against the post reserved for the OBC female category vide order dated 26.03.2011. She successfully completed the probation period and her services were confirmed. She discharged her duties honestly and sincerely without any complaint. One Smt. Parmeshwari Sinha, aggrieved by the said selection process, made a complaint against the selected candidates. On the basis of the complaint made by Smt. Sinha, an enquiry was initiated. The Enquiry Committee found discrepancies in the typing test marks and on the recommendation of the committee, the appointment order of the petitioner was canceled by respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 23.08.2018. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner was passed without issuing any show cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing. He would further submit that the entire enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. Even her statement was not recorded by the Enquiry Committee. He further submits that the petitioner was a regular employee and her services are governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966, and hence, the order impugned was passed without following the procedure -3- prescribed under the Rules. 4) Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that on the basis of the complaint of Smt. Parmeshwari Sinha, an enquiry was conducted which revealed that the petitioner and others were awarded higher marks in the typing test. On the basis of the enquiry report, the appointment order of the petitioner was canceled by the authority. It is also submitted that a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and the proper opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing the order impugned. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the file. 6) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 26.03.2011 and she continued to work till 23.08.2018. During this period, no departmental proceedings were initiated against her. A complaint was made by Smt. Parmeshwari Sinha against the recruitment process, pursuant to which an enquiry was conducted. It is an admitted fact that the enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and on the basis of its report, the order impugned was passed. Further, the petitioner was not provided any opportunity to participate in the said enquiry, nor was her statement recorded. 7) From a perusal of the documents, it is also apparent that no departmental enquiry was conducted, no article of charge was issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded before canceling the appointment order, though she was a regular employee. -4- 8) In the matter of Jai Shanker v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1966 SC 492], the question that fell for consideration before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was, whether the provisions contained under the Jodhpur Service Regulations were sufficient to enable the Government to remove a person from service without giving him an opportunity of showing cause against that punishment, if any, and it was answered in negative holding that the regulation involves a punishment for overstaying one's leave and the burden is thrown on the incumbent to secure reinstatement by showing cause and the Government cannot order a person to be discharged from service without at least telling him that they propose to remove him and without giving him an opportunity of showing cause as to why he should not be removed. It has further been observed as under :- “6. … A removal is removal and if it is punishment for overstaying one's leave an opportunity must be given to the person against whom such an order is proposed, no matter how the regulation describes it. To give no opportunity is to go against Article 311 and this is what has happened here. 7. In our judgment, Jai Shankar was entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the proposed removal from service on his overstaying his leave and as no such opportunity was given to him, his removal from service was illegal. He is entitled to this declaration.” 9) Similarly, in the matter of Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar [(1971) 2 SCC 330], another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that an order of termination of service passed under Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code on account of the servant's continuous absence for five years without giving an opportunity -5- to the servant under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India would be invalid 10) Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [(1978) 1 SCC 405] and State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei [(1967) 2 SCR 625] has categorically held that any administrative or quasi-judicial order affecting civil consequences must be passed only after complying with the principles of natural justice. 11) In the present case, the impugned order dated 23.08.2018 has been passed solely on the basis of an enquiry report prepared behind the back of the petitioner, without complying with the procedural safeguards and without affording her any opportunity to defend herself. 12) In view of the above-discussed facts and law, in the considered opinion of this Court, the cancellation of the appointment order of the petitioner is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.08.2018 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and is liable to be and is hereby quashed. 13) However, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with the law, by following the due process, if so advised. 14) The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim