Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 16 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Jyotirmaya Pradhan, System Administrator‑Cum‑Infra‑Consultant; Respondents – State of Chhattisgarh (through various departments) and Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society (CHiPS).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition (WPS No. 5727 of 2024) challenging the termination notice dated 28‑08‑2024, effective 30‑08‑2024, issued by CHiPS.
  • Background: petitioner was appointed on 23‑06‑2021 on a contractual basis for five years or until completion of the Khanij Online 2.0 Project, whichever was earlier. A show‑cause notice with six allegations was earlier served, but the termination notice cited “unsatisfactory performance” without any performance appraisal report or departmental enquiry.
  • Petitioner’s Contentions: alleged violation of natural justice, breach of Article 311 of the Constitution, non‑compliance with Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Samvida Niyukti) Rules 2012 (especially Rule 15(3) on performance appraisal), and discriminatory treatment compared with a similarly placed employee.
  • Respondent No. 3’s Contentions: argued that CHiPS is a society, not a State authority; the termination was a simple, non‑punitive termination under the contract’s probation clause; no enquiry was required; and the petitioner had not executed the standard agreement.
  • State Departments’ Position (Respondents 1 & 2): stated they had no role as the termination order was issued by CHiPS.
  • Legal Issues Considered: (i) Whether CHiPS, a society with a governing council headed by the Chief Minister and comprising several state ministers and secretaries, falls within “other authorities” under Article 12, making the writ maintainable; (ii) Whether the termination without a departmental enquiry violated natural justice or the 2012 Rules; (iii) Whether the termination was punitive or stigmatic.
  • Key Judicial Reasoning:
  • The Court applied Supreme Court precedents (Ajay Hasia, International Airport Authority, etc.) and held that CHiPS, due to its composition, funding, and control by the State, is an instrumentality of the Government and thus an “authority” under Article 12.
  • The termination was based solely on unsatisfactory performance; the contract expressly allowed termination during probation without a formal enquiry.
  • The order did not contain language indicating stigma or punitive intent; therefore, it did not breach principles of natural justice.
  • Rule 15(3) of the 2012 Rules applies only when a contract employee is considered for renewal, not when the contract is terminated for performance reasons.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed in its entirety.
  • No order as to costs is awarded.
  • The termination order dated 30‑08‑2024 stands as valid.

Topics: Employment Termination, State Authority