The High Court of Chhattisgarh reiterates that even in the case of daily wage or temporary employees, any stigmatic or punitive termination order must be preceded by a proper enquiry and opportunity of hearing, aligning with Supreme Court precedent. This decision upholds and applies established law, serving as a binding precedent for subordinate courts and persuasive authority for other jurisdictions, particularly affecting employment in government service.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/7990/2023 of VIKAS KUMAR SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010325862023 |
| Date of Registration | 05-10-2023 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law (Government/daily wage/temporary employment) |
| Questions of Law | Whether punitive or stigmatic termination of a daily wage or temporary employee without enquiry violates principles of natural justice and is legally sustainable. |
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) |
The High Court held that even if employment is daily wage or temporary, punitive or stigmatic orders of termination must comply with the principles of natural justice. If the order attributes misconduct or casts a stigma, due process in the form of enquiry and opportunity of hearing is mandatory, irrespective of the employment status. Termination without enquiry, especially in the presence of a subsequent refund and no pecuniary loss, is arbitrary and unsustainable. The judgment applies the Supreme Court’s ruling in Swati Priyadarshini and its own precedent, reinforcing that punitive action against temporary staff cannot bypass due process. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, employed as a daily wage Computer Operator for over 21 years, was terminated with stigmatic remarks alleging responsibility for excess payment to a school under the RTE scheme. No enquiry was conducted; all excess funds were refunded, resulting in no pecuniary loss to the State. The petitioner’s statutory appeal was dismissed without due consideration. The orders lacked application of mind and violated due process. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that even daily wage or temporary employees are entitled to principles of natural justice in punitive/stigmatic termination.
- Any order of termination attributing blame or misconduct mandates a departmental enquiry and opportunity of hearing, regardless of employee status.
- Termination orders passed in a mechanical or non-speaking manner, without considering representation or appeal, are liable to be quashed.
- Refund of alleged loss does not absolve the need for due process before imposing punitive consequences.
- Lawyers may directly rely on this judgment and cited precedents to challenge stigmatic/punitive dismissals without enquiry in public employment.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the petitioner’s long tenure, nature of appointment, allegations for excess payment, and the administrative response.
- It found that the termination order was passed with stigmatic remarks, attributing blame to the petitioner without holding any enquiry or affording opportunity of defence.
- The court noted that the Supreme Court in Swati Priyadarshini had categorically held the necessity of enquiry before any punitive or stigmatic removal—even for temporary or contractual staff.
- Reviewing the Chhattisgarh High Court’s own decision in WPS 8212/2023 (2025), the bench reinforced the established law regarding due process for such terminations.
- On facts, the excess amount had been returned and no loss was caused, further weakening any pressing administrative rationale for immediate punitive action.
- The court held the impugned orders arbitrary, violative of natural justice, and quashed them, directing reinstatement with consequential benefits but reserving liberty for proper enquiry if so advised.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Employed for over 21 years, terminated with stigmatic remarks without enquiry or personal hearing.
- The error leading to excess payment was at the approval/sanctioning authority’s level, not the petitioner’s.
- No loss to government as the excess amount has been fully refunded.
- Termination violates principles of natural justice and statutory/constitutional rights under Articles 14 & 21.
- Orders are non-speaking, mechanical, and identical facts in WPS 8212/2023 resulted in reinstatement.
Respondent (State)
- Termination was lawful and after consideration of all material.
- Petitioner, being a daily wager, had no vested right to continued service.
- Termination was on administrative grounds.
Factual Background
The petitioner was a daily wage Computer Operator in the office of the District Education Officer, Janjgir-Champa, employed continuously for over 21 years. An excess payment of ₹65,03,328 under the Right to Education Scheme occurred due to an error not attributable to the petitioner, who only performed data entry duties as directed. The excess amount was fully refunded by the concerned school. Nevertheless, the petitioner was terminated with stigmatic remarks, without enquiry or opportunity to be heard. His statutory appeal was dismissed in a non-speaking manner, prompting this writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- The court applied the principles of natural justice, emphasizing the necessity of proper enquiry under service law in cases of punitive/stigmatic termination, regardless of the nature of employment.
- Cited constitutional protections under Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (right to life and livelihood), finding the impugned orders violative thereof.
- The decision references and applies the apex court’s interpretation regarding stigmatic termination in Swati Priyadarshini.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents or innovations indicated in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.