Chattisgarh High Court
Komal Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 July, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6706 of 2018
1 - Komal Ram S/o Durangu Ram Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Jamgaon,
Tahsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Work
Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Raipur Zone, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Engineer In Chief Public Work Department North Block Sector- 19, Nirman
Bhawan Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
4 - Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department, Durg Circle, Durg,
District- Durg, Chhattisgah., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
5 - Executive Engineer Works Department Balod Division Balod, District- Durg,
Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate
For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, PL
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
11.07.2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call
for the entire record pertaining to the case of the
petitioner from the possession of the respondents for
its kind perusal.
10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issued writ /appropriate in the nature of mandamus
2and set aside the order dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure
P/1) passed by the respondent no. 4 grant monetary
benefit including retiral benefit in favour of the
petitioner.
10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble
Court may think in proper in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”
2. Mr. Kesharwani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the father of the petitioner was appointed to the post of Time
Keeper on 23.11.1972 at Sub-Division, Balod, Public Works Department
(C.G.). He would further submit that the father of the petitioner namely, late
Krishna Ram Bhista remained absent from duties from 01.04.1988 to
03.12.1992. He would also submit that thereafter, the father of the
petitioner approached the authorities to join the services but he was not
permitted and on 12.01.2007, an order was passed by respondent No.5/the
Executive Engineer whereby he was removed from services on the ground
that he remained absent from services for more than 4 years. He would
contend that his services were terminated from retrospective effect,
particularly with effect from 30.01.1999. He would further contend that an
appeal was preferred before the Superintendent Engineer, which was
dismissed by the said authority vide order dated 31.05.2018. He would also
contend that respondent No.4/the Superintendent Engineer in its order has
observed that no inquiry was conducted according to the Chhattisgarh Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the
Rules of 1966’) and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the late
Krishna Ram Bhista. He would argue that the father of the petitioner was a
regular employee under the respondents and therefore, the respondent
authorities ought to have conducted an inquiry according to the applicable
service Rules. He would further argue that the father of the petitioner died
on 02.04.2016. He would pray to allow this petition.
3
3. On the other hand, Mr. Bajpayee, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the
State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Kesharwani. He would
submit that the father of the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from
duties from 01.04.1988 to 03.12.1992. He would further submit that a show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.01.1989 but no response
was given. He would contend that when the father of the petitioner failed to
join services, a decision was taken by the competent authority to pass an
order of removal from services. He would further contend that the decision
was taken by respondent No.5 according to the provisions of Article 311(2)
of the Constitution of India. He would also contend that the order passed by
respondent No.5 dated 12.01.2007 has been affirmed by the appellate
authority i.e. respondent No.4. He would submit that the present petition
deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
documents placed on the record.
5. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner was a regular and permanent
employee posted in the post of Time Keeper under the respondents. He
was appointed on 23.11.1972. He remained absent from duties from
01.04.1988 to 03.12.1992. Thereafter, he approached the respondent
authorities but he was not permitted to join the services. After 15 years, an
order was passed by respondent No.5 dated 12.01.2007 whereby the
father of the petitioner was removed from services with effect from
30.01.1999. An appeal was preferred by the father of the petitioner before
the Superintendent Engineer and it was also dismissed vide order dated
31.05.2018.
6. A perusal of the documents filed by the respective Advocates would show
that no inquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was afforded
4
to the father of the petitioner. As the father of the petitioner was a regular
employee working under the respondents, the respondents were under an
obligation to conduct an inquiry according to the provisions of the Rules of
1966.
7. Mr. Bajpayee argued that the whereabouts of the father of the petitioner
were not known and no response was given to the notice issued to the
father of the petitioner dated 03.01.1989, therefore, the department
proceeded according to the proviso appended to Article 311(2)(b) of the
Constitution of India which states that 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.
8. The contention made by Mr. Bajpayee cannot be accepted.
9. It is not a case of the respondent authorities that the whereabouts of the
father of the petitioner were not known. It appears that after 03.01.1989, he
was never served with any notice. In the year 1993, the father of the
petitioner approached the respondent authorities to join his services but he
was not permitted and without the issuance of a show cause notice and the
service of article of charge, the order was passed by respondent No.5 on
12.01.2007.
10. The father of the petitioner was protected according to the provisions of
Article 311(1) & (2) of the Constitution of India which states that no person
who is a member of a civil service of the Union or of a State or holds a civil
post shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by
which he was appointed and such a person shall not 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
5
being heard in respect of those charges.
11. As the father of the petitioner was a regular Government servant, the
respondent authorities were under an obligation to initiate a departmental
inquiry according to the provisions of the Rules of 1966.
12. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order passed by
respondent No.5 dated 12.01.2007 and affirmed by respondent No.4 dated
31.05.2018 are hereby quashed.
13. The father of the petitioner, though he is no more, would be entitled to the
salary from January, 1993 till the date of his retirement with all
consequential benefits. From 01.04.1988 till 03.12.1992, he remained
absent from duties, therefore, the authority would be at liberty to take a
decision with regard to the period of absence.
14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha