1 2026:CGHC:14067 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4500 of 2021 * - Neelima Shory W/o. Shri Akash Sarthi, D/o Udai Singh Shory, Aged About 28 Years R/o B.K. Nagar, G.E. Road, Ward No. 30, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Directorate, Urban Administration And Development, Through Its Director, Indravati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Mayor-In-Council, Through The Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Panel Laywer For Respondents No. 1 & 2 For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/03/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to order the respondent-authorities to consider the case of petitioner afresh as one vacant post of Scheduled Tribe (Women) Sub- Engineer is still lying vacant in Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur and to afford opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.01 11:49:58 +0530 2 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders quashing the impugned termination order dated 02/05/2017 and to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits. 10.3 Any other relief which may deems fit may also be awarded along with cost of the petition.” 2. Ms. Harneet Kaur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Engineer (Civil) as Scheduled Tribe member on probation for period of 02 years vide order dated 25.01.2016 under respondent No. 3. She would submit that the petitioner applied for casual leave from 06.02.2017 to 08.02.2017 and thereafter applied for earned leave in prescribed format from 13.02.2017 to 22.02.2017 as she was suffering from typhoid. She would contend that the petitioner applied for leave from 27.02.2017 to 08.03.2017 on medical ground and again applied medical leave from 10.04.2017 to 08.05.2017 along with a copy of medical certificate. She would submit that the Municipal Corporation issued a show cause notice on 14.02.2017 which was duly replied by the petitioner and thereafter second show cause notice was issued on 03.03.2017. Ms. Harneet Kaur would submit that application for grant of medical leave was moved as the petitioner was pregnant and gave birth a girl child on 12.06.2017. She would contend that respondent No. 3 without holding any inquiry and without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing, terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated 02.05.2017 (Annexure P/6). She would further contend that the order is arbitrary, illegal and malafide as same has been passed in utter violation of principles natural justice. 3 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner did not submit relevant medical documents before respondents No. 3 and 4. 4. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4 would submit that notices were issued to the petitioner, but those notices were intentionally avoided by the petitioner, therefore, notice was served upon the petitioner through paper publication on 18.04.2017. He would contend that respondents No. 3 and 4 exercised power according to the provisions of proviso appended to Article 311 of the Constitution of India. He would submit that the order dated 02.05.2017 (Annexure P/6) has been passed strictly in accordance with law and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Amandeep Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 would support the contention made by Mr. Pankaj Agrawal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused records annexed with the instant petition. 7. Article 311 of Constitution of India reads as under:- “311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State.-(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all- India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges [***]: [Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the 4 basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: Provided further that this clause shall not apply---] (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b)where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c)where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.] (3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final.]” 8. Proviso appended to Article 311 (2) (b) of Constitution would make it clear that if it is not practicable to afford an opportunity to a government servant, the disciplinary authority or employer after assigning sufficient reason may pass order of dismissal or removable. In the present case, the petitioner moved applications for grant of leave before respondents No. 3 and 4. This fact has not been denied in the return filed by respondents No. 3 and 4. A medical document was also submitted by the petitioner dated 10.04.2017 which discloses estimated due date 22.07.2017 as at the relevant time, the petitioner 5 was pregnant. The petitioner gave birth a girl child on 12.06.2017 and that was reason for her absence from services. 9. As the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity and no departmental enquiry was conducted and thus, the order passed by respondent No. 3 dated 02.05.2017 is bad in law and same has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the said order is hereby quashed. 10. The matter is remitted back to respondents No. 3 and 4. Respondents No. 3 and 4 shall provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and would be at liberty to take decision strictly in accordance with law. The issue with regard to period of absence shall be considered by the authorities concerned. 11. With the aforesaid direction(s) and observation(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti