^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram:- Hon'bte Shri Dhirendra MishraA Hon'ble Shri R.N. ChandiilGair. Bl W.A. No.32(M200a ^ Appellant : Habil Bakhala. SA> Shri, Shiylaimar, aged about 3&^|U|S, ^ |;! Ex-Demonstrator , X^ivfc I. Pofytechnic Collegey AmNte^Hir, . ? RA» VillageKamlapur, Tahsil t Kusmi, Disfrict Sarguja (CG) , Versus A + Respondents : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, ftirough Secretary Mam Power; jintf '£'$ Planning Departnwnt ^BKS |3 Bhawan, Raipur ^G) 2. B.K. Singh Princj^t Govemin^nf:^ Potytechnic College Ambifcapur, *# DistrictSarguja (CG) 3. Umesh Singh Junior tnstructor Polytechnic College AmNkapu^*? c DistrictSarguja ^G) : T 4. Mr. Beer Sai Toppo Clerk Gwt. Polytechnic College Ambjl<s(j;»ur, ^";; District Sarguja (CG) ? •^- • :•: Writ appeal under Section 2(1 l of the ©hhatUsaarhHiah Court Adhinivam. 2007 * The following order of the Court was passed by Dhlrendra Mishra, J. 2SA)2/2010 Shri J.S. ^raik, counsel for ttie ap|wallant. ^•' Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advo^ite forthe State. •I-' This writ appeal Is directed against the order dated 22.0&2009 passed in W.P.(S) No.1265/2005, whereby the petitioner's writ petition has been dismissed with ttie following observrtion;- "Looking to ihe conckict ofthe peWoner during pmbation by maldng aSegations and counters altegaSons agalnstthe appoinSng es^hoRty wid otfwr emptoyees, lam af ff»cwfsvSwwS view ffiat Ihe performance and cwiduct of (fte ^ 5 peffffoner was nofsaffsfectofy dy/fng pRafcadftao. Thus, it Cannot be hekt 9wt ihe imptfgned removafofvleriwsbeenpasseelonthebasisof t any enquiry and, as such,the same was punMveorsSgmaSc. HokSngMiwKiuifyiswst ^ elways for impositton of ptffwshroe^ |)u^^' , , appraisal of fhe condwtalso. IftheefKfui^ is , held to assess ffw chaige of wa!fpl^eey'i Fenmval cannot be hekl as stigmatic w . punitive. Ttw wnyDUB^edwdierofremovia/dbes^ not indicate anything to shaw 9wt the oreter was stigmaSc wpumahiwnt. Applyng Ww weff seWed ra^o on fhe issue of fwfiowal of probattoner te the facts ofthe pwsent case, it is ctear that no enqwry was held. no HnfSng -r r was anived,s such.itcaiwotbeheksi-that1he m impugned order is pursttve or s^maffc. The petiffoner is not entMed to any epfiorb.iiyty of hearing during pfobatksn period. (2) Leamed counsel for the appellant submtts thatsthe appellant is a trlbal and was appolnted on probation for a period ofoneyear. During his probgtion period, demand of illegal gratification was made from him by the Principal/respondent No.2. The <appellant lodged a complaint to the senier officers against ttie aforesaid condust of the Principal. On his complaint, an enquiry was conducted bythe ofRcer appointed by respondent No.2. However, the enquiry ©fflcerheld that the allegations of the appellant was fatee and coutd not l»e substantiated. His probation was further extwded for perlod of one year vide order of Annexure P-2. However, the appeltBnt was removed from the post vide order of Annexure P-9, The writ petftion against his removal from the post has furthT been disraissed by the impugned order. ^:^—^ (3) Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that ttiough the order is not stigmatie, but the same was passed only after ttiel y^ lf4 -3>- -2^ appellant made comptaint against the respondent No.2. The enquiry -*.. was conducted by the ofRcer appdlnted by ttie respondent No.2 despite objection of the appellant in this r^ard. In these circumstances, the order impugned could not be passed wittteut issuing show cause notice to the appeltant and wftliout affording an opportunity of hearing to him. In the impugned^rder.lt ha&ibeenR wrongly held that since the order is not stigmatic and ttie g^pellant was appointed on probation, there wos no necessityforholding^any enqulry. «. (4) On the other hand, Shri Batehi» teamed Govt. Ac^ocate submite that the order is based on established principl^ ©flaw in ttiis reQard as the appellant was appointed on probation and as such he had no right to hold the post. The order impugned was not passed on the basis of enquiry report. (5) We have heard learned counsel for the parfles amd perused the impugned order. In ttie impugned order, it has been cat^orfcaUy held that ttie order of removal has not been passed on the basis of enquiry and as such the same was not punitive or stlgmatic. From bare perusal of order of removal, it is ctear that the oreler is laot f . stigmatic or punitive in nature and ttius relying upon the setUed princjptes of law and considering the fact ttiat the pfltttioner was probationer, theorder ofrernoval has been upheld. (6) In view of the admitted fact ttiat tiie p^fioner was removwl by the impugned order white he was on probation and ttw order fe n@t stigmatic, no ground was avatlable to the petitioner against order of his removal. t Priya (7) There Js no substence in ie app^il and ttie same is ctismlssedl at the admission stage itsetf. -—^ Sd/- Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge R.N. Chandrakar Judge