Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Dismissal Of Teacher On Allegations Of Objectionable Whatsapp Message To Girl Student

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that an authority cannot dispense with the inquiry contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution by merely recording its satisfaction. The Court held that where recourse is taken to Article 311(2)(b), the authority must record reasons in writing for dispensing with the inquiry, and in the absence of such reasons, the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. [2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 71]

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru was hearing a writ petition filed by a teacher challenging the order dated 07.02.2025 dismissing him from service under Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The petitioner contended that he had been dismissed on allegations of sending an objectionable WhatsApp message and making a video call to a girl student without issuance of a show-cause notice, without conducting any departmental inquiry and without being afforded an opportunity of hearing. The State defended the dismissal, contending that the competent authority had exercised its powers under Rule 10 of the Rules, 1966, considering the serious nature of the alleged misconduct.

The Court observed that before imposing the major penalty of dismissal, a departmental inquiry is required to be conducted in accordance with Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966, unless the case falls within one of the exceptions contained in Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Referring to Article 311(2)(b), the Court held that mere satisfaction of the disciplinary authority is not sufficient to dispense with an inquiry and that the authority must record reasons in writing before invoking the exception. It observed:

“… mere satisfaction without recording reasons, the authority cannot invoke Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution for dispensing with enquiry, as required under the main provision of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Even the reasons recorded are also subject to judicial review, as the same should be strong, cogent and relevant for taking such a decision.”

The Court held that the impugned order did not record any reason for dispensing with the inquiry and, therefore, the decision to invoke the exception under Article 311(2)(b) was contrary to the constitutional provision. The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the allegations against the petitioner since no inquiry had been held.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the dismissal order dated 07.02.2025 while reserving liberty to the competent authority to take appropriate steps in accordance with the constitutional provisions and the statutory rules.

Case Title: Kamlesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [WPS No. 3073 of 2025]

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 71