1 2025:CGHC:56229-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 833 of 2025 Hemant Kumar Deshmukh S/o Daya Lal Deshmukh Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kopedhi, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh Building and Other Constructions Worker Welfare Board Through Its Secretary, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector Kabirdham, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Additional Collector Kabirdham, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Indrajeet Burman Additional Collector Kabirdham, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Brij Bhushan Contractor, Lauh Purush Sardar Vallabh Bahi Patel, Co-Operative Shakkar Karkhana, Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Adv. General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19 . 11 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel for the appellant as ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 well as Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was writ petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.3372 of 2025 (Hemant Kumr Deshmukh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the appellant / writ petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was engaged as a Data Entry Operator in the Labour Office, Kabirdham, through “Call Me” Service Provider for the Chhattisgarh Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, with salary paid by the service provider and without the status of a Government servant. On 28.02.2023, a contractor, Shri Braj Bhushan Gupta, lodged a complaint regarding non- preparation of a licence, containing no specific allegation against the appellant, though the said complaint was withdrawn on 02.03.2023, but a memorandum dated 28.04.2023 was issued for termination of services of the appellant on the basis of complaint dated 28.02.2023 preferred by respondent No.6 namely Brij Bhushan Gupta. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant has filed WPS No. 3372/2023 and during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, respondent has issued the order dated 3 23.05.2023 for discontinuation of the services of the appellant and thereafter appellant filed the order along with the application for taking additional documents in records. Ultimately, the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 13.08.2025, hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. He further argued that although the appellant was employed through Call Me service provided, but he was discharging public duty under the supervision and control of the respondents. The order of disengagement of the appellant back to the service provider is not simpliciter, but punitive and stigmatic. The allegations of committing illegal transaction while discharging the duties of Data Entry Operator is admittedly without enquiry. The stigma attached with the termination order entails civil consequences which is disqualification for further employment order State Government or its agency or even in private institutions. Hence the order of termination/ disengagement without enquiry is liable to be quashed. He further submit that though the ratio laid down in Swati Priyadarshan Vs State of M.P and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139 decided on 22.08.2024 squarely covers in facts and circumstances of the present case and further the appellant has also placed reliance upon the order passed in WPS No. 3133/2025 Sindhunath Mandal vs State of C.G in 4 which the employee was from placement agency i.e Call Me service provider and he was given similar treatment and protection as that of contractual employee and was granted protection of Principles of Natural Justice before dispensing with the services, but the Learned Single Judge committed error of law in not relying upon the judgment passed in similar case and in similar facts which create a binding precedents as law of land. He also submits that the scope and ambit of Article 311 (2) extents to the contractual employee also. In the present case the employees through service provider and contractual employee are placed on more or less on similar footing because the employer and employee relationship arises out of contract in he earlier case and sub contract in the later one. The appellant is discharging public duty as Data Entry Operator and the work is entrusted to him by the respondents. Any act committed by the appellant will be deemed to the act of State and therefore instant writ petition is maintainable on behalf of appellant. 5. Mr. Majumdar further argued that the learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant was employee of placement agency and therefore the State Government was not under obligation to conduct an enquiry before taking action against the petitioner. It is further observed that the services of the petitioner were simply returned to the placement agency from whom they were initially deputed. The State is not empowered to take disciplinary action vis imposing major or minor punishment against the contractual 5 employees. Placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharam Singh Vs. State of UP decided on 19th of August, 2025 and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment regarding the protection of interests of employees through outsourcing agencies, he submitted that the only action that can be taken is dispensing with there services with further disqualification of reemployment. Like wise in the case of employees of placement agency who are discharging the same function and duties as that of contractual employees can be disengaged by invoking the contractual provision of employment/ contract. There can be further disqualification of reemployment in the contract employment also between the service provider and respondent No.2 there is no stipulation about passing of stigmatic order against the employee of placement agency. Had it been termination simpliciter of contract, no cause of action would have been arisen in favor of appellant to challenge the same. As a consequence of stigmatic order the appellant is unemployed till date and no employer is ready to grant him employment. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents opposed the aforesaid submission submits that the service of the appellant was provided through a placement agency, pursuant to an agreement executed between the placement agency and the concerned authority, i.e., the Magistrate and as such, the appellant do not hold any direct contractual relationship with the 6 State, therefore, the impugned order calls for no interference, as the learned Single Judge has examined all relevant aspects and recorded well-reasoned findings. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. It is undisputed fact that the appellant was engaged through a placement agency, and under a contractual arrangement, their services were provided to the State Government by the said agency. The impugned order dated 23.05.2023 was issued by the placement agency, whereby, while making certain allegations against the appellant, his services were returned to the agency. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Dharam Singh (Supra), which, however, is distinguishable on facts of the present case. In the Dharam Singh (Supra) case, the appellants therein were engaged by the Commission, established under the UP Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 and further that there is no allegation against the appellants therein. However, in the present case, the service of the petitioner was availed through a placement agency, and the contract was executed between the State Government and the said agency. 9. So far as contention raised by the appellant that order of disengagement of the appellant back to the service provider is not simpliciter, but punitive and stigmatic is concerned, while 7 investigation of complaint being submitted by one Shri Braj Bhushan Gupta, though the same was withdrawn by him, the Additional Collector, Kabirdham found that the appellant was guilty of fraudulent transaction, therefore, the appellant has been relieved from his duties. Therefore, it cannot be held that the State Government was under any obligation to conduct an enquiry before taking action, particularly when no direct order was passed against the appellant. The service of the appellant was simply returned to the placement agency, from whom they had been initially deputed. As such, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order. 10. In view of the above, we find no infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.3372/2023 warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra