Chhattisgarh High Court reinstates peon fired by state after 30 years of service

Case

Sahu, 50, was initially appointed as peon in 1989 on a temporary basis, and his services were subsequently regularized on March 25, 1996, in the state education department.

On January 30, 2018, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him with allegations of unauthorised absence.

Following this, he submitted detailed replies explaining his medical condition and family circumstances and expressed remorse, assuring that such lapses would not recur.

He filed a departmental appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. As the appeal was not decided, the petitioner approached the high court.

The high court directed the disposal of the appeal within a stipulated time. However, no decision was taken, and he filed a contempt petition.

The appellate authority, secretary, school education department, Chhattisgarh rejected his appeal on November 4, 2022, without recording findings as required under relevant laws.

Sahu challenged the termination order dated July 31, 2018, and the appellate order dated November 4, 2022, calling those illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the statutory rules and settled principles of law.

Arguments

Advocate Praveen Dhurandhar, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the termination order as well as the appellate order are illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, are liable to be set aside.

He added that his client’s appeal was summarily rejected solely on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of 45 days.

Opposing these submissions, advocate Hariom Rai, appearing for the state, informed the court that he has been rightly inflicted with the punishment of removal from service, keeping in view his past service record, habitual misconduct, and repeated acts of indiscipline.

He said that Sahu had a history of unauthorised absence and misconduct and, on earlier occasions also, disciplinary action had been taken against him, including imposition of punishment.

Despite being granted leniency earlier, Sahu continued to indulge in unauthorised absence and other acts of misconduct, demonstrating incorrigible conduct and complete disregard for service discipline, the counsel said.

Observations

The bench said that the rejection of valid medical certificates and the imposition of the major penalty of removal demonstrates “extreme harshness and an arbitrary exercise” of discretion.

The total period of absence, when considered in the larger context of the petitioner’s long service spanning over three decades, does not justify the extreme penalty of termination, particularly when leniency had been extended earlier, and the petitioner had expressed remorse and assured non-recurrence, it added.

The court said that Sahu’s case does not fall in the category of “grave or incorrigible misconduct” warranting the extreme penalty of removal from service.

“There is no finding on record to demonstrate that the petitioner’s absence was wilful, deliberate, or actuated by an intention to abandon service,” the court noted.

The court further said that the termination order and the appellate order dated suffer from “serious procedural and legal infirmities”.

The departmental inquiry was conducted in a manner that is “wholly arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice”, the court said.

Taking note that the petitioner was neither supplied with the inquiry report nor informed of the witnesses to be examined, the court said that the charges were determined without giving him an opportunity to defend himself.

The inquiry officer arbitrarily rejected the petitioner’s medical certificates, demonstrating clear bias, and treated minor absences as habitual misconduct, the bench noted.

The extreme punishment imposed in the form of termination from the service reflects an “arbitrary and excessive exercise” of disciplinary discretion and is grossly disproportionate.