1 2025:CGHC:6828 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1054 of 2025 1 - Smt. Anita Singh W/o Anup Singh Aged About 43 Years Working As Staff Nurse District Hospital Durg (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Health Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Pooja Sahu Staff Nurse Civil Dispenciry Ramnagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/02/2025 1. By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 26.12.2024, in which the petitioner has been attached at District Hospital Durg. 2. The petitioner prays for following reliefs:- “i. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated (Annexure P-1), and petitioner may be allowed to continue at Civil Dispensary Ramnagar in the interest of justice. 2 ii. Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Nursing Sister at Civil Dispensary Ramnagar. By impugned order dated 26.12.2024, the petitioner has been attached to District Hospital Durg. As per Circular of the Health Education Department, there is a direction not to attach employee, even if there is an emergency situation, an employee can attached only for 7 days and further more, matter has to referred to State Government. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that vide impugned order dated 26.12.2024, petitioner was posted at District Hospital Durg from Civil Dispensary Ramnagar upon an enquiry conducted against the petitioner and other staff nurses. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing of the impugned order and before enquiry, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and impugned order has been passed which bears civil consequences as it is stigmatic order, as such she was required to be granted an opportunity of hearing. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents submit that they have filed their return and the order impugned has rightly been passed and there is no any anomaly in the said impugned order, however, he admit this fact that before enquiry or passing impugned order, opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 3 material available on record. 7. From perusal of material available on record, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly taking note of this fact that without granting any opportunity of hearing the order of posting has been passed based upon some enquiry in which the petitioner was found guilty. 8. At this stage, I am inclined to allow this petition and the impugned order dated 26.12.2024, in respect to the petitioner is hereby quashed, however, the State is directed to initiate action against the petitioner after giving due opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna SHAYNA KADRI Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI