Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 381 (CHH)

Sawan Kumar Durgam v. State of C. G.

2014-11-11

PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2014
ORDER Pritinker Diwaker, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 19.10.2010 (Annexure P/12) passed by respondent No. 2/Collector, Bijapur terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Chowkidar. Brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Rojgar Sahayak on 27.11.2007 on contractual basis at Janpad Panchayat-Bijapur and his services were extended from time to time till 28.2.2011. According to the petitioner, on account of there being administrative exigency, he had worked as Data Entry Operator from 7.10.2009 to 30.6.2010 in the office of Zila Panchayat. The post of Data Entry Operator was advertised on 23.7.2010 and the petitioner had also applied for the said post. Along with his application he had also submitted the experience certificate (Annexure P/4). Thereafter, vide order dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure P/5) he was selected for the post of Data Entry Operator on contract basis. However, upon scrutiny it was discovered that the petitioner did not have the requisite experience of two years for the post of Data Entry Operator as disclosed by him and in fact, he had mentioned incorrect dates in his experience certificate. Considering this aspect of the case, the petitioner's selection on the post of Data Entry Operator was cancelled vide order dated 2.9.2010 (Annexure P/6A). In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also applied for the post of Chowkidar in the office of District Collector, Bijapur and vide order dated 17.8.2010 he was appointed as Chowkidar and gave his joining on the said post on 19.8.2010 vide Annexure P/8. However, vide impugned order dated 19.10.2010 (Annexure P/12) the petitioner's services from the post of Chowkidar have been terminated on the ground that while submitting his application against the post of Data Entry Operator, he had not disclosed the correct fact, his experience certificate was found doubtful and therefore, he is-also not entitled to continue as Chowkidar. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appointment of the petitioner on the post of Chowkidar was a regular appointment after following the due procedure of law and therefore, the same can not be cancelled abruptly without following the principles of natural justice or conducting proper departmental enquiry. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appointment of the petitioner on the post of Chowkidar was a regular appointment after following the due procedure of law and therefore, the same can not be cancelled abruptly without following the principles of natural justice or conducting proper departmental enquiry. Even assuming that the petitioner had admitted his mistake vide Annexure P/10 i.e. reply to the show cause notice, his services could not have been terminated because he had not drawn any benefit of the alleged experience certificate which has been found doubtful. 3. On the other hand, supporting the impugned order it has been argued by the State counsel that while appointing the petitioner as Chowkidar it was made clear that if upon verification any information given by the petitioner is found to be incorrect, his services shall be liable to be terminated. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused their pleadings. 5. It is not the case of the State Government that the petitioner has drawn any benefit of the so-called experience certificate of Data Entry Operator while submitting his application or securing selection to the post of Chowkidar. In fact, it is an admitted position that for being appointed as Chowkidar, experience on the post of Data Entry Operator is irrelevant and the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar after following the due procedure of law on the basis of his educational qualification. Once the petitioner has not drawn any benefit of his so-called disputed experience certificate for being appointed as Chowkidar, the said certificate can not be used against him for terminating his services as Chowkidar. Furthermore, while replying to the show cause notice the petitioner had stated that it was a clerical mistake on his part and the same was inadvertent, for which he has already been punished by removing him from the post of Data Entry Operator. Keeping in view all these things, the respondents could have considered the case of the petitioner with a different angle. The respondent/Collector has terminated the services of the petitioner merely on the basis of his reply to the show cause notice without affording him an opportunity of hearing or without conducting any departmental enquiry against him. Considering all these aspects of the case, the impugned order dated 19.10.2010 (Annexure P/12) cannot be sustained, the same is hereby set aside. The respondent/Collector has terminated the services of the petitioner merely on the basis of his reply to the show cause notice without affording him an opportunity of hearing or without conducting any departmental enquiry against him. Considering all these aspects of the case, the impugned order dated 19.10.2010 (Annexure P/12) cannot be sustained, the same is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Chowkidar. However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner would not be entitled for any backwages. Petition allowed.