1 2025:CGHC:49707 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5242 of 2016 1 - Ram Kumar Yadav S/o D. R. Yadav, Aged About 36 Years R/o Vasundara Nagar, Chandora Bhata, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, Occupation- General Duty Medical Officer, Sickle Cell Institute Chhattisgarh, Pt. J. N. M. Medcical College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sickle Cell Institute Chhattisgarh Through- Its Director General, Pt. J. N. M. Medical College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General, Sickle Cell Institute Chhattisgarh, Pt. J. N. M. Medical College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Joint Director Administration, Sickle Cell Institute Chhattisgarh, Pt. J. N. M. Medical College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 06/10/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s):- i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record of the case pertaining with issuance of order dated 03.09.2016 bearing No.612/SCIC/Est./2016 from the office of respondents and; ii) Further be pleased to set-aside and quash the impugned order dated 03.09.2016 bearing No.612/SCIC/Est./2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent no.2 by 2 issuance of appropriate writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other writ/writs, order/orders, in the interest of justice. iii) Any other relief/reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed. 2. The instant petition challenges the order dated 03.09.2016, by which the petitioner's services were terminated with effect from 03.10.2016 without conducting any inquiry as mandated under the relevant law, and in an arbitrary manner which casts a stigma upon the termination. The petitioner was appointed to the post of GDMO by order dated 28.02.2014, following a selection process conducted by the respondents, in accordance with the relevant rules and the due process of law. At the time of filling the online application form, the petitioner disclosed his degree and experience, submitting all relevant documents. After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the petitioner and subsequently interviewing him, the petitioner was duly selected and appointed. Subsequently, based on an anonymous e-mail alleging that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification and lacked the necessary years of experience, an investigation committee was constituted. The investigation committee, however, failed to conduct any inquiry as per the service rules. Instead, it submitted a report ex parte (or without the petitioner's knowledge/behind his back) and recommended the termination of his services, which forms the basis of the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 03.09.2016 (Annexure P-1) whereby a notice for termination of the service of the petitioner was issued by the Director General, Sickle Cell Institute of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. He submits that as per the impugned notice, the services of the petitioner were no longer required by the respondent w.e.f. 03.10.2016. He further submits that an advertisement was issued by the respondents in January, 2014, inviting applications for appointment on various posts, including the post of General Duty Medical Officer (GDMO). He submits that essential qualification for appointment to such post is M.B.B.S with 3 years’ experience, or M. D. (recognized 3 by medical council of India). He submits that the petitioner had submitted his application, and after due verification of his requisite qualifications/ testimonials, was appointed to the post of General Duty Medical Officer under the Other Backward category vide an order dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure P-5). He submits that he has been performing his duties with sincerity and devotion ever since. He submits that some anonymous complaints were made against the petitioner via email, alleging that the petitioner does not have the minimum qualification for such post and was not having 3 years’ experience. He further submits that the petitioner obtained the degree of M. D. from Vitebsk State Medical University, Belarus, in the year 2008, and he was also given a certificate of registration by the Chhattisgarh Medical Council in the year 2013. The counsel also submits that the petitioner thereafter worked as Casualty Medical Officer in the J.P. Hospital, Zirakpur, from 10.09.2008 to 15.07.2011 and also worked under various medical institutions to complete the three years of experience. He further submits that the impugned order indicates that the petitioner has made a wrong entry in the Post Graduation Column as ‘M. D. Physician’ and also does not have 3 years’ experience as Medical Officer after completion of his internship. He submits that the advertisement does not indicate that the experience should have been counted after completion of internship. He further submits that on many occasions show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner, which have been duly replied by the petitioner, and despite recording satisfaction with the testimonials of the petitioner, he was appointed without conducting a departmental enquiry contemplated in the Sickle Cell Institute, Chhattisgarh (Recruitment, Service and Promotion) Rules, 2013 (for short “Rules of 2013”). He submits that a major penalty cannot be imposed. He further submits that Rule 15 of the Rules of 2013 contemplates that in case any major penalty is proposed against the employee of the respondents, a departmental inquiry ought to have been conducted in light of Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 (for short “Rules of 1966”). Therefore, he submits 4 that impugned show-cause notice (Annexure P-1) deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Opposing the submissions, Mr. Bajpai vehemently argued that the advertisement issued by the respondents explicitly indicates that the petitioner should have an M.B.B.S. degree with 3 years’ experience or M. D. from any recognized Medical Council of India. He submits that a perusal of the qualification mentioned in the advertisement clearly indicates that the degree of M.B.B.S., and M. D. as the case may be, should be recognized by the Medical Council of India. He submits that the petitioner, who has obtained the M. D. degree from Belarus, which is not recognized in India, cannot be recognized unless the petitioner passes a screening test in light of sub-Section 4A of Section 13 of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956. He further submits that regulations have also been formulated by Medical Council of India dated 13.02.2002, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that a person who has not passed the screening test would not be entitled to practice in India. Admittedly, the petitioner passed the Provisional Screening Test in the year 2011. Any experience gained by the petitioner prior to 2011 would not be counted as valid experience for computing the 3 years’ experience as envisaged in the advertisement. Apart from this, Mr. Bajpai submits that the petitioner was on probation, and therefore, there is no requirement of any detailed departmental inquiry. He submits that 3 or 4 occasions the petitioner was given a show-cause notice to put forth his case, which has been duly replied, and after detailed deliberation on the reply submitted by the petitioner, the impugned show-cause notice was issued. He further submits that in the application form, in the column of Post Graduation, the petitioner has mentioned ‘M. D. Physician’ as Post Graduation qualification, which in fact is not correct. Therefore, he submits that there is no merit in this case and liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. To the question as to whether the petitioner is qualified for appointment on the post of GDMO, this Court is not inclined to go into this aspect of the matter for the reason that the services of the petitioner are governed by the Rules of 2013, and according to 5 Rule 15 thereof, in case any major penalty is likely to be imposed against the petitioner, the inquiry contemplated under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1966 is required to be done by the employer. The petitioner in Para 9.2 has taken a very categorical ground. For ready reference, Para 9.2 of writ petition is quoted herein-below:- 9.2 Because, as per rule 15 of the Rules of 2013 Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 (hereinafter called as 'CCA Rules for sake of brevity) is applicable for imposing penalty. As such for terminating the services of the petitioner full fledged enquiry as per Rule 14 of the CCA Rules should have been conducted as it is not a discharge simplicitor nor it is an termination of the probation on being unsatisfied with the performance. Allegation leveled against the petitioner accuse the petitioner of serious misconduct of suppression of vital informations for which enquiry in terms of Rule 14 of CCA Rules was essential but the mandatory provisions of Rule 14 of CCA Rules have not been followed. 7. In the return filed by the respondent, the reply to Para 9.2 lacks a specific denial. Based on the factual background presented, the respondent contended that the petitioner could not raise any ground as mentioned in Para 9 of the writ petition. It appears that, as per Rule 15 of the Rules of 2013, a departmental enquiry was required to be initiated by framing a specific charge against the petitioner, which should have been conducted in accordance with the Rules of 1966. Since there is no evidence that such a departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and in view of the forgoing discussions, this Court is of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions contained in Rules of 2013. Furthermore, any inquiry conducted against the petitioner hereafter shall not be prejudiced by the findings recorded in this order. 8. Thus, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.10.09 17:43:08 +0530