News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 121 | 2026:CGHC:7443
February 10, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has clarified an important point of service law: an employee cannot be dismissed on allegations of misconduct without a proper departmental enquiry if the termination order carries stigma.
In WPS No. 6829 of 2019, decided on February 10, 2026, Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal set aside the termination of Gaind Ram Yadav, a watchman appointed in 2016 under the Rules Relating to Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Contingency-Paid (District and Sessions Judges Establishment) Employees Rules, 1980.
Yadav had been issued show-cause notices in April and May 2019 over the alleged theft of a Reverse Osmosis filter from the new District Court premises in Bilaspur. After submitting replies, he was terminated on June 26, 2019, with immediate effect. The authorities relied on Rule 9 of the 1980 Rules and a clause in his appointment order to justify the action.
Before the court, the petitioner argued that the termination was stigmatic in nature because it was based on allegations amounting to misconduct. His counsel contended that under Rule 15 of the 1980 Rules, any penalty falling within certain categories requires a formal procedure, including clear communication of charges and an opportunity for explanation through a proper enquiry.
The respondents maintained that the termination was lawful and carried out in accordance with the governing rules.
The court examined the framework of the 1980 Rules and noted that while Rule 9 allows termination with notice in certain circumstances, Rule 15 prescribes a specific procedure for imposing penalties related to misconduct. Justice Agrawal observed that although two show-cause notices were issued, no charge-sheet was served and no departmental enquiry was conducted.
The court found that the termination order attributed dereliction of duty amounting to misconduct. Such an order, the judge held, is stigmatic and cannot be treated as a simple discharge. When termination is founded on allegations of commission or omission that amount to misconduct, compliance with principles of natural justice is mandatory.
In reaching this conclusion, the court referred to precedent including a Division Bench ruling in Krishna Pal v. District & Sessions Judge, Morena, which held that if termination is based on misconduct, statutory procedure and enquiry under Rule 15 must be followed.
Holding that the impugned order violated Rule 15, the court set aside the termination dated June 26, 2019. It directed that Yadav be reinstated with all service benefits except back wages. The question of back wages was left to be decided by the competent authority, depending on whether he was gainfully employed during the period of termination. The authorities were also granted liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with the rules, if advised.
The ruling reinforces the distinction between a simple termination and a stigmatic dismissal, underscoring that even contingency-paid employees are entitled to procedural safeguards when allegations of misconduct form the basis of action.
Case Reference : WPS No. 6829 of 2019, Gaind Ram Yadav vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others, Mr. Rajeev Bharat appeared for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Tamaskar represented the State, and Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri appeared for Respondents No. 2 and 3.
