ORDER : (Rajani Dubey, J.) 1. Since the issues involved in both the petitions are same, therefore they are being heard together and decided by this common order. 2. By way of the instant petitions, the petitioners are challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 09.03.2015 (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No.2/Director Health Service, Raipur whereby the representations of the petitioners made in pursuance to the order dated 30.10.2014 passed in WPS Nos. 5669/2014 and 5670/2014 has been rejected and also sought quashment of the order dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure P/12) issued by respondent No.3/Chief Medical & Health Officer Raipur whereby the petitioners have been terminated from the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male). 3. Brief facts of the cases are that the petitioners are honorably discharged Naik Nursing Assistants from the Army Medical Corps of the Indian Army on 01/08/2008. The petitioners were appointed as Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) in ex-servicemen quota, [now referred as MPW (M)] on 24/09/2008 by respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and subsequently confirmed on the said post upon completion of probation period on 08/11/2011. However, during the course of their employment, the petitioners developed disagreement and differences with President of respondent No.7 union. Thus, the President of respondent No. 7 union moved an application dated 10.03.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in order to obtain information regarding qualification and eligibility of the petitioners to be appointed as MPW(M). In response to this application, respondent No. 3 informed respondent No. 7 by its letter dated 05.08.2014, that the petitioners are eligible and qualified for the said post. 4. Respondent No. 7 in order to further his vengeance and vendetta against the petitioners made a false complaint to respondent Nos. 1 to 3, regarding eligibility and qualification of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners were served with a show cause notice dated 21.08.2014 (Annexure P/10), to which the petitioners duly replied on 27.08.2014 (Annexure P/11) and then, however without holding a duly constituted departmental enquiry, services of the petitioners were terminated vide order dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure P/12). 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners preferred writ petitions before this Court being W.P.(S) Nos. 5669/2014 & 5670/2014, which were disposed of vide order dated 30.10.2014 with direction to the petitioners to prefer a departmental appeal before respondent No. 2. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners preferred writ petitions before this Court being W.P.(S) Nos. 5669/2014 & 5670/2014, which were disposed of vide order dated 30.10.2014 with direction to the petitioners to prefer a departmental appeal before respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the petitioners made appeal on 14.11.2014 (Annexure P/14) but the same was rejected vide order dated 09.03.2015 (Annexure P/1). Hence, the instant petitions have been filed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction thereby quashing/setting aside order No. 140, Naya Raipur dated 09.03.2015 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.2; and also seeking quashment of order No. 814 in WPS No. 1321 of 2015 & order No. 813 in WPS No. 1322 of 2015, Raipur dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure P/12) issued by Respondent No.3. 10.2 Cost of the petition. 10.3 Any other relief(s), direction(s), which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in pursuance of the advertisement, the petitioners had applied and also produced relevant documents. After scrutiny of all the documents, they were allowed to participate in the recruitment process as Ex-serviceman. After completion of all the formalities, the selection committee considered the candidatures of the petitioners as Ex-serviceman and their names were recommended for appointment/ selection to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) as per Annexure P/20. Petitioners were appointed to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker on 04.10.2008 on probation period of 2 years. In pursuance of the appointment order, the petitioners joined at their place of posting at Raipur and they also completed 2 years of their probation period successfully and confirmed on the said post. Since the petitioners have been confirmed on the post on which they were appointed, their service cannot be terminated without following the provisions prescribed under the Chattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The services of the petitioners have been terminated without affording any opportunity of personal hearing, therefore, it is complete violation of principles of natural justice and on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The services of the petitioners have been terminated without affording any opportunity of personal hearing, therefore, it is complete violation of principles of natural justice and on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On perusal of the order of termination order dated 14.10.2014, there is a serious allegation levelled against the petitioners in respect of suppression of facts as well as conduct of the petitioners under Employees Conduct Rules, 1965, as such the impugned order is stigmatic in nature amd the same cannot be passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing as well as without holding the proper departmental inquiry. Therefore, the impugned order is prima facie illegal and is liable to be set aside. The petitioners were appointed in the year 2008 as per qualifications prescribed under Madhya Pradesh Public Health and Family Welfare Department Non- Ministerial (Related to the Directorate of the Health Services) Class III service recruitment Rules, 1989. Now the services of the petitioners have been terminated relying upon the subsequent rules which was published on 06.07.2013 and the same was enforced much after appointment of the petitioners. Petitioners having qualification which is equivalent to Nursing Attendant Dresser and in the present case the petitioners admittedly had worked to the post Nursing Assistant (AMC) more than 22 years of service and retired from the post of Nursing Assistant (AMC) w.e.f. 01.04.2008. Since the petitioners had already worked more than 22 years of service as Nursing Assistant, so one year training of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) is not required. Armed Force Medical Services has also issued the certificate of Technical Proficiency General Nursing of 3 Years General Nursing Course/Examination as well as Certificate of Proficiency in favour of the petitioners in the Year 1999 and March 2008 (vide Annexure P/2 & P/3). State Government has also framed the rules called as “Madhya Pradesh Bhutpurv Sainik (Rajya Civil Sevaaon Tatha Padon, Tritiya Shreni Aur Chaturth Shreni mein Riktiyon Ka Arakshan) Niyam, 1985” wherein rules 6 provides special provision for Ex-serviceman and according to this Rule, the appointing authority may consider the qualification of the petitioners and relax the training of one year to the Ex-serviceman. It is also clear that the petitioners were appointed on 04.10.2008 till date of issuance of termination order i.e. 14.10.2014, they had already completed 6 years of continuous service, as such, they had acquired the much experience for the post on which they had been working i.e. on the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male). During the service period on the basis of false complaints submitted by the Union i.e. Respondent No.7 in the Year 2014. Accordingly, show cause notice issued to the petitioners vide Annexure P/10 dated 21.08.2014 and the petitioners submitted their detailed reply to the authority on 27.08.2014 (vide Annexure P/11), however, the Chief Medical & Health Officer in most arbitrary manner without issuing any charge sheet and without conducting the departmental inquiry as well as without considering the submission and explanation of the petitioners, vide order dated 14.10.2014 (vide Annexure P/12) straightway issued the order of termination against the petitioners, which is completely gross violation of the principles of natural justice as well as contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Civil (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. It is also clear that on complaint made by respondent No.7, a query was made by the Chief Medical & Health Officer Raipur and vide letter dated 05.08.2014 (Annexure P/9), it was informed that the petitioners are eligible and qualified for appointment as MPW and also informed that the petitioners has been appointed prior to enforcement of new Recruitment Rules, 2013, as such the requirement of enroll with Chhattisgarh Paramedical Council was not necessary for the petitioners as they had been appointed in the Year 2008. Even after said clarification, the State Govt. i.e. Director, Health Services in most arbitrary manner and without giving opportunity of hearing, terminated the services of the petitioners. So far as allegation in respect of suppression of earlier employment in Mahasamund District, it is submitted that there was no clause or column prescribed in the application form in respect of submission/details of the earlier employment, as such they could not submit in respect of earlier employment. Even otherwise the petitioners had already resigned from the earlier employment before joining to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) on depositing one month salary. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Ram Maurya Vs. Even otherwise the petitioners had already resigned from the earlier employment before joining to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) on depositing one month salary. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Ram Maurya Vs. Union of India ; 2005 CJ(SC) 520, this Court’s order dated 02.11.2011 in the matter of Gajju Ram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another; 2011 CJ(Chh) 105, order dated 04.10.2021 passed in WPS No. 30 of 2012 in the matter of Sewak Ram Purena Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another & order dated 12.06.2023 passed in WA No. 450 of 2021 in the matter of Krishna Kumar Kosaria Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners were appointed as Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) and ex-defence personnel quota vide order dated 24.09.2008 (Annexure P/5) on probation for a period of two years. Thereafter, the services of the petitioners were confirmed vide order dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P/7). A complaint (Annexure P/8) was made by respondent No. 7 against the appointment of the petitioners on this ground that they were appointed against the rules and they don’t have requisite qualification and are illegally performing the duty of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) on the basis of the technical proficiency certificate. On the basis of this complaint, respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 21.08.2014 (Annexure P/10) showing explanation within a period of 7 days as to why the services of the petitioners may not be terminated. The petitioners replied to the said notice vide Annexure P/11 and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioners to be unsatisfactory, the respondent No. 3 directed the District Health Officer, Raipur for conducting inquiry in the matter and in turn, the District Health Officer, Raipur conducted the inquiry and in the inquiry, the appointments of the petitioners were found illegal as they do not possess the requisite qualification of the post of MPW as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, 1989 as per Annexure R/1. The certificate of technical proficiency in General Nursing course undergone by the petitioners has duly been enquired and verified from the Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi and in its letter dated 06/12/2013 (Annexure R/2), the Indian Nursing Council clarified that the certificate of technical proficiency in General Nursing course of the petitioners are not found equivalent to G.N.M. Course and they cannot be registered as R.N.R.M. and hence are not eligible to practice as nurse. After considering the report submitted by the District Health Officer, Raipur in note-sheet (Annexure R/2) and also considering the clarification of the Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi and the fact that by concealing the fact in their applications form prior to get employment which is fraud in nature and gross violation of Conduct Rules, 1965, the impugned order dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure P/12) has been issued terminating the services of the petitioners with immediate effect. Prior to passing the impugned order dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure P/12), the petitioners were afforded due opportunity of hearing and an inquiry was also conducted by the respondent No. 3 and thereafter, the impugned order dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure P/12) was issued. The termination order dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure P/12) was challenged by the petitioners in W.P. (S) Nos. 5669/2014 and 5670 of 2014 which were disposed by this Court off vide order dated 30.10.2014 (Annexure P/13) on the ground of availability of alternative efficacious statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Against the termination order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was dismissed after consideration. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No.3 after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and there is no illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned orders. Therefore, these petitions being without any merit are liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 9. It is an admitted position in this case that both the petitioners were ex-defence persons and they participated in the recruitment process and subsequently appointed on the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) vide order dated 24.09.2008 (Annexure P/5) on probation for a period of 2 years. Thereafter, the services of the petitioners were confirmed vide order dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P/7). Thereafter, the services of the petitioners were confirmed vide order dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P/7). It is also not disputed that on complaint (Annexure P/8), a show-cause-notice was issued against the petitioners and in pursuant to which, they submitted their reply and thereafter impugned order dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure P/12) was passed terminating their services. Being aggrieved by the said order, they preferred an appeal and the same were also dismissed by impugned order dated 09.03.2015 (Annexure P/1). 10. As per reply of the respondents, an enquiry was conducted by respondents No. 2 and 3 but it is clear from the documents that they only issued letter for verifying the certificates of the petitioners and after report submitted by the DHO, Raipur and after getting clarification from the Indian National Council, the impugned order dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure P/12) was passed. Respondent authorities also did not file any charge-sheet or documents with regard to departmental proceeding against the petitioners. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Ram Maurya Vs. Union of India; 2005 CJ(SC) 520 held in para 3 as under:- “3………...that the appellant demanded kickback with a view to help the complainant to get a favourable order in the pension matter. That being so, there was a clear charge of bribery levelled against the appellant. No doubt, the appellant was a temporary employee, but if he is sought to be removed on the ground that he was guilty of the charge of bribery, it becomes necessary for the respondent Union of India to hold an inquiry and thereafter to act in accordance with law.” 12. This Court in the matter of Gajju Ram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another; 2011 CJ(Chh) 105 held in para 7 as under:- 7. From the documents available on record it is apparent that the petitioner was a regular employee of Water Resources Department working as labourer. From the service book of the petitioner (Annexure P-8) it is apparent that apart from regular increments he was granted benefit of 6th pay commission also after his regularization. Thus for all practical purposes, the petitioner was confirmed employee of the Government. It is now a settled legal position that services of a confirmed employee cannot be terminated without giving notice or conducting departmental enquiry against him even if he had suppressed relevant information in column 12 of the attestation form. Thus for all practical purposes, the petitioner was confirmed employee of the Government. It is now a settled legal position that services of a confirmed employee cannot be terminated without giving notice or conducting departmental enquiry against him even if he had suppressed relevant information in column 12 of the attestation form. In the case of Kamal Nayan Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2010 2 SCC 169 it has been held by the Apex Court as under: 4. The form also required the appellant to certify that the information given by him in the said form was correct and that if any information was found to be false or incomplete in any material respect, the appointing authority may terminate him from the service without giving notice or showing cause. 15. A confirmed government servant is the holder of a civil post entitled to the benefits of the safeguards provided by Article 311 of the Constitution. On the other hand, a probationer does not have any substantive right to hold the post, and is not entitled to the protection under Article 311. A probationer's services can be dispensed with during the period of probation, or at the end of the probation period, if his service is found to be unsatisfactory or if he is found to be unfit for appointment. 20. The learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to the instructions to the employees in the preamble to the attestation form and the undertaking contained in the verification certificate by the employee at the end of the attestation form, which puts him on notice that any false information could result in termination of his service without enquiry. It is contended that as the attestation form stated that an employee could be terminated without notice, if he furnishes false information, the employee is estopped from objection to termination without notice. The said contention may merit acceptance in the case of a probationer, but not in the case of a confirmed government servant. 21. No term in the attestation form, nor any consent given by a government servant, can take away the constitutional safeguard provided to a government servant under Article 311 of the Constitution. 22. The said contention may merit acceptance in the case of a probationer, but not in the case of a confirmed government servant. 21. No term in the attestation form, nor any consent given by a government servant, can take away the constitutional safeguard provided to a government servant under Article 311 of the Constitution. 22. A seven-Judge Bench of this Court held in Moti Ram Deka v. North East Frontier Railway, 1964 AIR(SC) 600 as follows while negativing a contention that a person who enters service by executing a contract containing a rule contrary to Article 311, with open eyes, cannot be permitted to challenge the validity of the said rule or the contract (AIR p.611, paras 31-32) "31….. In our opinion, this approach may be relevant in dealing with purely commercial cases governed by rules of contract, but it is wholly inappropriate in dealing with a case where the contract or the Rule is alleged to violate a constitutional guarantee afforded by Article 311 (2);.. 32. Let us then test this argument by reference to the provisions of Article 311 (1), Article 311 (1) provides that no person to whom the said article applies shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Can it be suggested that the Railway Administration can enter into a contract with its employees by which authority to dismiss or remove the employees can be delegated to persons other than those contemplated by Article 311(1)? The answer to this question is obviously in the negative, and the same answer must be given to the contention that as a result of the contract which embodies the impugned Rules, the termination of the railway servant's services would not attract the provisions of Article 311 (2) though, in law, it amounts to removal. 24. The termination of the appellant without an enquiry or hearing was illegal and valid. In the normal course, we would have set aside the termination and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits, reserving liberty to the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings. But the peculiar facts of this case require us to adopt a slightly different approach to do complete justice between the parties. 25. In the normal course, we would have set aside the termination and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits, reserving liberty to the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings. But the peculiar facts of this case require us to adopt a slightly different approach to do complete justice between the parties. 25. We have already pointed out that there are clear indications that the appellant was bona fide under the impression that he was required to give the particulars sought in Column 12 of the form with reference to the date of his appointment. Further, the entire matter relates to an attestation form given in 1994 and the appellant has already been out of service for more than seven years on account of the illegal termination from service without an enquiry on 7.3.2002. We are therefore of the view that the interests of justice would be served if the appellant is reinstated with continuity of service and other consequential benefits, dispensing with any further disciplinary action. The appellant will not be entitled to any salary for the period 7.3.2002 till today. 26. We accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. The writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court is allowed, setting aside the termination dated 7/3/2002. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant with continuity of service and other consequential reliefs (except salary for the period 7.3.2002 till date)". 13. Recently this Court in WPS No. 30 of 2012 order dated 04.10.2021 in the matter of Sewak Ram Purena Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another after observing the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 16 as under:- “16. The petitioner was confirmed employee as he has been confirmed by order dated 21.4.2010 after completion of period of probation. Recently this Court in WPS No. 30 of 2012 order dated 04.10.2021 in the matter of Sewak Ram Purena Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another after observing the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 16 as under:- “16. The petitioner was confirmed employee as he has been confirmed by order dated 21.4.2010 after completion of period of probation. As already held in foregoing paragraphs that order dated 4.6.2011 is without jurisdiction and without authority of law the petitioner being confirmed employee on the date of termination dated 15.12.2011, his services could not have been terminated without holding regular departmental enquiry in accordance with Rule 14 (1) of the Chhattisgarh civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called as 'Rules of 1966') as termination from service is major penalty within the meaning of Rule 10 (viii) of the Rules of 1966 and as such, merely giving one month's salary in lieu of notice, the petitioner's services could not have been terminated.” 14. In light of above, it is clear that both the petitioners were appointed after successfully clearing the selection process and after completion of their probation period, their services were regularized vide order dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P/7) and till issuance of the impugned order dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure P/12), they completed 6 years of service. Para 3 of Annexure P/12 dated 14.10.2014 reads as under:- ^^3- f'kdk;r esa ;g rF; lkeus vk;k gS fd vki iwoZ esa egkleqan ftys esa 'kkldh; lsok esa dk;Zjr Fks] fdUrq bl ftys esa vkosnu Hkjrs le; mDr tkudkjh dks fNikdj vkosnu izLrqr fd;s FksA tks fd 'kklu ds lkFk /kks[kk/kM+h dk izdj.k curk gS ,oa deZpkjh vkpj.k fu;e 1965 ds foijhr gSA^^ 15. Thus, the impugned order was passed by the competent authority without conducting any enquiry and without affording any proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners being confirmed employees on the date of termination order dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure P/12), therefore, their services could not have been terminated without holding regular departmental enquiry and in accordance with CCA Rules, 1966, as termination from service is major penalty within the meaning of Rule 10 (viii) of the Rules of 1966. 16. Accordingly the impugned order dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure P/12) terminating the service of the petitioners is hereby set aside. 16. Accordingly the impugned order dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure P/12) terminating the service of the petitioners is hereby set aside. The concerned respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioners treating them in continuity of service with all consequential benefits except the monetary benefits. The question of back-wages will be considered by the respondent authorities in accordance with applicable Rules on the basis of material available on record and to pass an order within two months from the date of a copy of this order. The petitioners are at liberty to file representation within two weeks claiming back-wages. The concerned respondent authorities are also at liberty to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioners, if so desires.