^ (s^- ^ .•: BE^G' '-*-''" •'^-,','i ^ <,tt~Ite IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH ATBILftSPOR WRIT PETITION (S ) No. j]^~0 Of 2009 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: / ^^y^ ^p^'"" Jitendra Smfaa S/o Late Ramanand Prasad Siaha, aged about 28 years, R/o Mohalla Mayapur, Anibikapur, Distriet Surguja <CG^. Versus ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through tfee Secre-tary Pood Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). /2. The Collector Surguja Ainbikapur, District Surguja (CGj. /3. The Additional Collector Surguja(CG). ^4. Food Officer, offiGe of GoIIeetorate, Ambikap-yr, DiStrict Surguja (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONS^TU'nON OF INQIA . 1 OAUTTr'TTT AUQ ln>T,''T-UT.' rtT.'TT'nTm^TT^n.— HIGH COURTQFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTI PETmON (8) No. 1150 PETmONER : JitmdraSmha. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 8(ate ofChhattisgath&Others. WRTT PETTHON UNDERARnCLE226 OF THE CONST1TUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'bteShri Satish K. ABnflwtri. J. ^ Present: Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advoeate fia-tt»petiticuier. i Shri AV.Shridhar, Panel Lawya- fortheState. ORDEKCQRAD (Passed on05 day of'Jauuffl-y, Wli) 1. The petitionff-unpugnsthe order dated 09.02.2009 (AnnexureP/l) passed by Ifae Food OfBcer, Ambikapur, Distriet Sui^uja^'wdiei'eby the ^pointmeut of the petitioner on the post of Qr^e III, Computer Data Entry Operator, by arderdated; 19.01.2009, was cancelled onthe ground that the appointmeat ofthe'petititmer'was not in accordance witii law. 2. Shri Sinha, leamed counsel appeariag for ttie petiticaier sirtunits that the petiti(»er was appointed by tiie Adt&ional eblled.or, Ambikapur after due proeess of seleetion and ia aec<adancefwyh law on the post of Data Entry Operator aa probation for a peiiiod aftwo years. Thepetitionei,thereafterjom«ltfaesaidpost<»n 20.01.2009. Al! af a sudden, without any sfaow-eause-tioyce, the Food QfHcer, Ambikapra-, who is notthe Additi<aial Coliector or senior to the Additiond CoUector, has caacelled Ifae appoaaSmwtt. order dated 19.01.2009, without aay authority oflaw and wMtout affording an opportunity ofhearingto&e petitiona-. Shri Smha fiirther suhraits that it is not the case •wherem. tiie petitfoner has been removed during probation on being found unsatisfaetoty. -€ 8. Qn the otfaer fasmd, Shri Shridhar, leamed Panel Lawyer ^pearing, forthe State/respondents suhmits that admittedly, tiie Food QfiBfier is a different officerand belongs to different cadre and he is alsa not holding the post equal to that ofthe Additional Collector <w Collector. However, since the petitioner was on probation, no show eause notice was necessary before passiag the anpugned order as the appointmentwas done, not in accardanee withlaw. Heard leamed counsel appeariag for the parties, perused llie pleading and documents appended thereto. It is evident that tiie appointmettt onler dated 19.QIJ2009 was passed by tfie Additional Collector for appourtment ®nprobattmi for ai period oftwo years. , It is weU settled law thata probatiQner can be removed ftom serviceoanotbemgfoundsatisfactotybutnotonaay-othergppiuid which is stigmatic in nature, •without affOTding aa cppoituialy of hearing. In the case on hand, tha-e is m> disputefhat no opportum^ ofhearmgwasafifordedtothepetittaier. .,;i. • -^ < ^..:.^i, i" Secondly, it is also a trite law tfaat q)pointing autfaority alone or any afBeer superior to tfae appointingauthority can iwiwve an- anployee fi-om his post, and not any oflier officear wlio belongs toa drfiFerent cadre. In fhe case on hand, tfae Food Qffiew is neitto &e appomtmg authorily nor superior to Additional Collector. 'Rius, te is neither competent nor legally juslified to pass Ihe mi^igted order. „-,, .. .. 1. , •:,'..;l.::.,«.u;..">;' For tiie reasons stated faereinabova, <he impugiied order jdateA 09.02.2009 (Annexure P/l) is quashed aadthe petition is allowed. , However, this brder may not be construed to curtail tiie poweES.of the competent officer to take appropriate action,»ia accorBaiMie withlaw,ifsoadvised. —- — ~~ Sd/- , Satish K. Agnihotri! Judge i Amit