1 Reserved on – 22.04.2025 Delivered on – 04.09.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3417 of 2015 Arvind Kumar Rajput S/o Shri Falgo Singh Rajput Aged About 32 Years R/o Rajapara Ratanpur Tahsil Kota District Bilaspur C. G., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Vice Chancellor Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Vishwavidyalay North Park Avenue Sector 8 Bhilai, District Durg C. G., Chhattisgarh 2 - Kul Sachiv, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Vishwavidhyalaya, North Park Avenue Sector 8 Bhilai, District Durg C. G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput CAV Order 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s); (10.1) It is prayed that the impugned order dated 23.03.2015, passed by the respondents (Annexure P/2), being illegal, may kindly be quashed and set aside. (10.2) It is further prayed that since the respondents have illegally terminated the services of the petitioner only from the year 2015, the petitioner’s services be treated as continuous, and the respondents be directed to pay to the petitioner his salary and all consequential emoluments from March 2015 till the date of reinstatement. (10.3) It is further prayed that the respondents be restrained from illegally terminating the services of the petitioner in future. HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.09.08 16:20:00 +0530 2 (10.4) It is further prayed that the entire costs of this petition be awarded to the petitioner and may be directed to be paid by the respondents. (10.5) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner against the respondents. 2. The case in a nutshell is that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis as Assistant Grade–III in Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, vide Order No. /C.G. Sw.Vi.Ta.Vi./Accounts/2006/461 dated 17.04.2006, vide Annexure P/1 issued by Respondent No. 2, on a consolidated contractual monthly remuneration of Rs.3,975/-. That vide Order No. /C.G. Sw.Vi.Ta.Vi./Prasha./2015/90R, Bhilai, dated 23.03.2015 (Annexure P/2), his services got terminated with immediate effect and the reason cited for termination was that, during the process of revaluation, he has allegedly influenced the revaluation examiners by directing them to evaluate leniently in consideration of money received, thereby affecting the result of the revaluation. He was never served with any charge-sheet by the inquiry committee, nor was any reply called from him. The petitioner was neither permitted to lead evidence in his defence, nor was he given an opportunity to rebut or cross-examine the evidence and witnesses allegedly examined by the inquiry committee. No reasonable opportunity of defence or of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Without affording him any opportunity, he has been arbitrarily and illegally terminated from service. The petitioner, with respect to the aforesaid allegations, he sought a copy of the charge-sheet, inquiry report prepared by the inquiry committee, along with the names and addresses of the committee members by filing an application on 27.07.2015 under the Right to Information Act (Annexure P/6). However, on 06.08.2025 (Annexure P/8) the same was denied by the University on the ground of being confidential in nature. After his termination, he has moved several representations to the authorities concerned which are still pending for consideration before them. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 23.03.2015 by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated and is liable to be set aside as it is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and administrative law. He also submits that a copy of charge-sheet, list of oral or documentary evidence, opportunity to file reply and opportunity to cross-examine the complainant or witnesses, and to rebut the documentary 3 evidence was also ever afforded to the petitioner, nor he was informed about the dates of enquiry proceedings, and thus he was condemned unheard which is the contravention of the principle of audi alteram partem. He further submits that the allegation is that the petitioner accepted money to influence the revaluation proceedings is wholly unsubstantiated as it has not been disclosed from whom, when, or how much money was taken, whose revaluation was influenced, or who was adversely or beneficially affected. 4. He submits that he has made a representation to the authorities on 27.03.2015, 30.05.2015 and 05.06.2015 vide Annexure P/3, P/4 & P/5 respectively against his termination but the same are still pending. 5. The petitioner, with respect to the aforesaid allegations, he sought a copy of the charge-sheet, inquiry report along with the names and addresses of the committee members by filing an application on 27.07.2015 under the Right to Information Act (Annexure P/6). However, on 06.08.2025 (Annexure P/8) the same was denied by the University on the ground of being confidential in nature. 6. He submits that the petitioner, being an Assistant Grade–III (contractual employee), and hence it is neither conceivable nor possible that he could made any influence upon them for revaluation proceedings, and if at all the revaluators Ms. Leela Nair and Ms. Dolly Sharma acted under influence of the petitioner, they too should have been held guilty of misconduct and they may also be given same punshment. Moreover, the process of revaluation is conducted through a computerized system where the identity of the candidates remains undisclosed, making it impossible to influence the outcome. In these circumstances, the impugned order removing the petitioner from service is arbitrary, baseless, and unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Swati Pryadarshini Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors passed in Civil No. 9758 of 2024; U.P. State Raod Transport Corporation & ors Vs. Brijesh Kumar & Anr. Reported in (2024) INSC 638. One another matter of this Court in case of Guru Ghasidas Central University Vs. Dr. Ashish Rastogi in WA NO. 440/2021 and batch of cases order dated 16.11.2022. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 23.03.2015, passed by the respondents (Annexure P/2), the petitioner’s services be treated as continuous, and the 4 respondents be directed to pay to the petitioner his salary and all consequential emoluments from March 2015 till the date of reinstatement & the respondents be restrained from illegally terminating the services of the petitioner in future and submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable as the impugned order dated 23.03.2015 (Annexure P/1) was passed by Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, which is a necessary party to the proceedings, yet he has failed to implead the University as a respondent, and therefore the petition suffers from non-joinder of a necessary party and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-III vide order dated 17.04.2006 purely on temporary basis, with a specific stipulation that his services could be terminated at any time and that he would have no vested right over the post; hence, being a temporary employee his service can be terminated at any point of time. He also submits that one side the petitioner has taken the ground as no opportunity of hearing given by the respondent before issuing the termination order and other side he has admitted the fact that a reply/explanation on writing has been called by the inquiry committee and petitioner had submitted the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that no any opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner. He also submits that he has made a representation before the Hon’ble Chancellor on 30.05.2015 but the petitioner has not mentioned about the decision upon the said representation in this petition. He submits that the allegation made against petitioner is serious in nature and before terminating the service of the petitioner, the principal of natural justice has been followed by the respondent authorities and proper opportunity of hearing has been given to him. He also submits that the petitioner also appeared before the inquriy committee and made a statement. Therefore, he prays that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. To bolster his submissions, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Sing & Ors passed in WA No. 607/2023 order dated 12.08.2024. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Dr. Nadeem Khan Vs. State of C.G. & Anr. passed in WPS No. 5871/2018 order dated 07.09.2018. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Dr. Nadeem Khan Vs. State of C.G. & Anr. passed in W. A. No. 798/2018 order dated 07.12.2018. 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available 5 on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis as Assistant Grade-III in Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, vide order dated 17.04.2006, on a consolidated contractual remuneration. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has influence upon re-valuators who are regular employees of the respondents institution, and it also does not appears that the revaluators Ms. Leela Nair and Ms. Dolly Sharma acted under influence of the petitioner. 10. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner was never served with any charge-sheet, nor was any list of oral or documentary evidence supplied to him and there by he was deprived of the opportunity to put forth his say on the charge leavened against him. Not only this, when the petitioner was moved an application demanding the documents of proceedings under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has also not been considered and the application has been rejected. From perusal of records it also appears that the copy of cha 11. From the record it is manifest that the petitioner's services were terminated without following the principle of Audi Alteram Partem as he was deprived of his valuable rights to bring forth his defence, which is absolutely illegal and contrary to the judicial dictum enunciated by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions reiterating that no one can be condemned unheard. This Court does not form an opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made against the petitioner regarding the influencing the revaluation process, yet the settled legal position of following the principle of natural justice cannot to be set at naught while passing the order of termination which is punitive in nature. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar & Ors., reported in (2015) 15 SCC 151 has observed as under :- “27. ………….. It is well settled in law, if an ex parte enquiry is held behind the back of the delinquent employee and there are stigmatic remarks that would constitute foundation and not the motive. Therefore, when the enquiry commenced and thereafter without framing of charges or without holding an enquiry the delinquent employee was dismissed, definitely, there is clear 6 violation of principles of natural justice. It cannot be equated with a situation of dropping of the disciplinary proceedings and passing an order of termination simpliciter. In that event it would have been motive and could not have travelled to the realm of the foundation. ……...” 13. In a recent pronouncement, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Swati Priyadarshini Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139 decided on 22.08.2024, in which the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is to the fact that even if for contractual appointment, if any stigmatic order is to be passed, it is to be passed after holding proper enquiry and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned delinquent/employee, which has not been done in this case. In para 34 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “34. It is profitable to refer to what five learned Judges of this Court laid down in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 5: “28. The position may, therefore, be summed up as follows : Any and every termination of service is not a dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. A termination of service brought about by the exercise of a contractual right is not per se dismissal or removal, as has been held by this Court in Satish Chander Anand v. Union of India [(1953) 1 SCC 420 : 1953 SCR 655]. Likewise the termination of service by compulsory retirement in terms of a specific rule regulating the conditions of service is not tantamount to the infliction of a punishment and does not attract Article 311(2), as has also been held by this Court in Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1954) 1 SCC 572 : (1955) 1 SCR 26]. In either of the two abovementioned cases the termination of the service did not carry with it the penal consequences of loss of pay, or allowances under Rule 52 of the Fundamental Rules. It is true that the misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification may be the motive or the inducing factor which influences the Government to take action under the terms of the contract of employment or the 7 specific service rule, nevertheless, if a right exists, under the contract or the rules, to terminate the service the motive operating on the mind of the Government is, as Chagla, C.J., has said in Shrinivas Ganesh v. Union of India, [58 Bom LR 673 : AIR 1956 Bom 455] wholly irrelevant. In short, if the termination of service is founded on the right flowing from contract or the service rules then, prima facie, the termination is not a punishment and carries with it no evil consequences and so Article 311 is not attracted. But even if the Government has, by contract or under the rules, the right to terminate the employment without going through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to punish the servant and if the termination of service is sought to be founded on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of Article 311 must be complied with. As already stated if the servant has got a right to continue in the post, then, unless the contract of employment or the rules provide to the contrary, his services cannot be terminated otherwise than for misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other good and sufficient cause. A termination of the service of such a servant on such grounds must be a punishment and, therefore, a dismissal or removal within Article 311, for it operates as a forefeiture of his right and he is visited with the evil consequences of loss of pay and allowances. It puts an indelible stigma on the officer affecting his future career. A reduction in rank likewise may be by way of punishment or it may be an innocuous thing. If the government servant has a right to a particular rank, then the very reduction from that rank will operate as a penalty, for he will then lose the emoluments and privileges of that rank. If, however, he has no right to the particular rank, his reduction from an officiating higher rank to his substantive lower rank will not ordinarily be a punishment. But the mere fact that the servant has no title to the post or the rank and the Government has, by contract, express or implied, or under the rules, the right to reduce him to a lower post does not mean that an order of reduction of a servant to a lower post or rank cannot in any circumstances be a punishment. The real test for determining whether the reduction in such cases is or is not by way of punishment is to find 8 out if the order for the reduction also visits the servant with any penal consequences. Thus if the order entails or provides for the forfeiture of his pay or allowances or the loss of his seniority in his substantive rank or the stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion, then that circumstance may indicate that although in form the Government had purported to exercise its right to terminate the employment or to reduce the servant to a lower rank under the terms of the contract of employment or under the rules, in truth and reality the Government has terminated the employment as and by way of penalty. The use of the expression “terminate” or “discharge” is not conclusive. In spite of the use of such innocuous expressions, the court has to apply the two tests mentioned above, namely, (1) whether the servant had a right to the post or the rank, or (2) whether he has been visited with evil consequences of the kind hereinbefore referred to? If the case satisfies either of the two tests then it must be held that the servant has been punished and the termination of his service must be taken as a dismissal or removal from service or the reversion to his substantive rank must be regarded as a reduction in rank and if the requirements of the rules and Article 311, which give protection to government servant have not been complied with, the termination of the service or the reduction in rank must be held to be wrongful and in violation of the constitutional right of the servant.” (emphasis supplied) 14. Thus, as seen from the expressions of the Apex Court, if an order is founded on allegations, the order is stigmatic and punitive, the services of an employee cannot be dispensed with without affording him an opportunity of defending the accusations/allegations. Even an employee on a contract cannot be terminated without allowing a hearing. 15. Though along with return the respondents have placed on record proceedings of some enquiry conducted by the respondents against the petitioner, however the said enquiry cannot be equated to a departmental enquiry. The stand of the petitioner is in denial of the allegations leveled against him. From perusal of 9 it, it does not appear as to whether the petitioner was given an opportunity to any witnesses. Once the petitioner has denied the allegations against him, it was incumbent upon the respondents to conduct the departmental enquiry as the charges so levelled would cause a stigma upon him. With due respect the case law cited by the learned counsel for the respondents do not help in the given facts circumstances of the case. 16. In the case at hand, as seen from the proceedings impugned, no opportunity of hearing is afforded to the petitioners though the order of removal from service is stigmatic one and thus, the order suffers from a violation of principles of natural justice. On that ground alone, the order impugned is liable to be set- aside. 17. Accordingly, in light of above discussion and taking guidance from the judicial pronouncement of Supreme Court, the petition is allowed and the order impugned terminating the petitioner is hereby set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass a fresh order but only after affording the petitioner due opportunity of hearing after supplying all the relevant documents desired by him, in accordance with law. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari