The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside the dismissal of a government school teacher after finding that the disciplinary authority failed to follow the constitutional safeguards required before removing a public servant from service. The Court held that merely expressing satisfaction is not enough to bypass a departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Kamlesh Kumar Sahu, a government teacher, challenging an order dated February 7, 2025, by which he was dismissed from service under Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. The dismissal followed allegations that he had sent an objectionable WhatsApp message and made a video call to a girl student.
The petitioner argued that the dismissal order was passed without issuing a show-cause notice, without conducting a departmental inquiry, and without giving him an opportunity to present his defence. He contended that this violated the principles of natural justice and the constitutional protection available to civil servants.
The State defended the dismissal, submitting that the competent authority had acted considering the seriousness of the alleged misconduct and had exercised its powers under Rule 10 of the 1966 Rules.
Court's Observations
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru examined whether the disciplinary authority was justified in dispensing with a departmental inquiry by relying on Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.
The Court observed that Article 311 ordinarily requires a government employee to be informed of the charges and given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself before any major penalty such as dismissal is imposed. The exception under Article 311(2)(b) can be used only when the authority records valid written reasons showing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry.
Referring to several Supreme Court judgments, including Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, and Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, the High Court reiterated that the constitutional requirement of recording reasons cannot be treated as a mere formality.
“The impugned order does not record any reasons for dispensing with the enquiry as laid down in Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966,” the bench observed.
The Court further noted that since no departmental inquiry had been conducted, it would not examine the merits of the allegations themselves. Its scrutiny was confined to whether the constitutional procedure had been followed before imposing the punishment.
Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the dismissal order dated February 7, 2025. At the same time, it granted liberty to the competent authority to proceed afresh in accordance with the Constitution and the applicable statutory rules, if it chooses to do so.
The Court concluded that invoking Article 311(2)(b) without recording reasons for dispensing with a departmental inquiry was contrary to the constitutional mandate and therefore could not be sustained in law.
Case Details
Case Title: Kamlesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Case Number: WPS No. 3073 of 2025
Judge: Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Decision Date: 09 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
