1 / 5 2026:CGHC:16735 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2988 of 2026 • Prahlad Choubey S/o Late Ram Lal Choubey Aged About 52 Years Occupation Driver In The Office Of The Chief Medical And Health Officer Rajnandgaon (Department Of Health And Family Welfare) R/o In Front Of P.T.S. Rajnandgaon Near Patal- Bhairwi Temple Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare Swasthya Bhawan, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Directorate Of The Health Services, Third Floor, Block- A, Indirawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. J.N. Nande, Advocate For Respondents- State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 10/04/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus to quash the impugned termination order dated 09/03/2026 vide bearing No.अवि./2026/1187 Rajnandgaon (Annexure P-1) issued by the Chief Medical & Health Officer Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon, in furtherance of justice. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 5 10.2 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ and directing the respondents to cancel the impugned termination order dated 09/03/2026 and to reinstate the Petitioner with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief/relief's which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on the post of Driver in the year 1994 on daily wage basis and thereafter the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rajnandgaon has issued an order for regularization of his service vide order dated 23.10.2017 and since then petitioner continuously worked till 09.03.2026 ie., the date of discontinuation of services of petitioner. He contended that from the face of the order/ letter it is clearly appearing that petitioner was a regular employee of department and has completed of about 8 years of service and therefore if for any reason or ground petitioner is to be terminated from the service or he is to be discontinued from the service then proper enquiry is to be conducted. Discontinuation of petitioner from services without conducting enquiry, is violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his contention, his places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar vs. GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology Ghurdauri and Ors. Reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 541. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that even no show-cause notice is issued to petitioner prior to issuance of letter Annexure P-1 dated 09.03.2026 discontinuing the service of petitioner. 3 / 5 4. Learned counsel for State submits that pursuant to the observation made by this Court on the last date of hearing, she has sought instruction with regard to whether any show-cause notice was issued to petitioner or not, upon which she was telephonically informed that prior to issuance of letter Annexure P-1 no show-cause notice was issued to petitioner. 5. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, no purpose will be served in issuing notice to respondents, keeping this writ petition pending and seeking reply from respondents when the instruction has already been sought by learned State counsel from the concerned authorities. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition finally at motion stage. 6. Undisputedly, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was regularized in service vide order dated 23.10.2017 and since then petitioner is regular employee of the respondent-department is not in dispute as regularization of service of petitioner is specifically mentioned in the order/ letter Annexure P-1. It is also not in dispute that petitioner since the date of his regularization on the post of Driver by the order of Respondent No. 3 has completed about more than 8 years of service on the date of issuance of letter of discontinuation of petitioner from service. 7. Removing a Government permanent employee can only be by following due process of law until and unless it is alleged that petitioner obtained job by putting forged and fabricated documents. In the case at hand, in the letter there is no mention of such allegation. 4 / 5 8. For taking disciplinary action against government servant, imposing major penalty of dismissal/ termination from the services, provisions are provided under the Rules of 1966. Discontinuation of petitioner from service will attract major penalty as provided under Rule 10 of the Rules, 1966. Rules of 1966 provides for procedure for enquiry which is provided under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966. In the case at hand, no such procedure is followed nor any show-cause notice was issued to petitioner before issuance letter Annexure P-1 dated 09.03.2026. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) while dealing with termination of services of a Registrar without following due process of law has observed thus: “18. On a bare perusal of the termination letter dated 19th May, 2022, it becomes apparent that the decision to terminate the services of the appellant from the post of Registrar was not preceded by an opportunity to show cause or any sort of disciplinary proceedings. The enquiry as referred to in the termination letter was in relation to the qualifications of the appellant for being appointed on the post of Registrar. The letter further indicates that the selection to the post of Registrar was not approved by the Board of Governors in its 26th meeting dated 16th June, 2018. The said observation in the letter dated 19th May, 2022 is totally erroneous and contradicted by the minutes of the meeting dated 16th June, 2018. (reproduced supra). 19. In this background, we are of the firm view that the termination of the services of the appellant without holding disciplinary enquiry was totally unjustified and dehors the requirements of law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the learned Division Bench of the High Court fell in grave error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant on the hypertechnical ground that the minutes of 26th meeting of the Board of Governors dated 16th June, 2018 had not been placed on record.” 5 / 5 10. In the aforementioned facts of the case and decision as referred above in Sandeep Kumar’s case (supra), I am of the view that Respondent No. 3 has discontinued petitioner from service in violation of principles of natural justice, without following due process of law and therefore letter Annexure P-1 dated 09.03.2026 discontinuing petitioner from service is not sustainable and it is hereby quashed. Respondents- authorities will be at liberty to take fresh action following due process of law, if they so desire. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn