DR. PRADEEP KUMAR SHUKLA vs GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY

1

CGHC010250482026 2026:CGHC:38970-DB
NAFR
MANPREET
KAUR
Digitally signed by
MANPREET KAUR
Date: 2026.09.03
15:59:03 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 667 of 2026
Dr. Pradeep Kumar Shukla S/o Shri Shri Nath Shukla Aged About 51
Years Associate Professor (Terminated), Department Of Bio-
Technology, Guru Ghasidas University, P.S. And P.O. Koni, Civil And
Revenue District Bilaspur, Permanent Address Village Para Brahmanan,
P.O. Kuchera, District Faizabad (Now Ayodhya), U P 224158 Uttar
Pradesh
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Guru Ghasidas University Through Its Registrar, P.S. And P.O. Koni,
Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495009
2 - The Vice Chancellor And Chairman Of The Executive Council Of
Guru Ghasi Das University, P.S. And P.O. Koni, Civil And Revenue Distt
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
3 - Dr. M S K Khokhar Ex Registrar (Acting) Presently Working As The
Pro Vice Chancellor And Executive Council Member Of The University,
Guru Ghasidas University, P.O. And P.S. Koni, Civil And Revenue Distt
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4 - Shri K L Tiwari Working As A Professor (On Extension), Department
Of Bio Technology, Guru Ghasidas University, P.O. And P.S. Koni, Civil
And Revenue Distt Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
5 - Shri B N Tiwari Head Department Of Bio Technology, Guru Ghasidas
University, P.O. And P.S. Koni, Civil And Revenue Distt Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh

2
6 - Dr. Seema Rai Working As An Associate Professor In Department Of
Zoology, Guru Ghasidas Central University And A Member Of The
Executive Council Of Guru Ghasidas Central University, P.O. And P.S.
Koni, Civil And Revenue Distt Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
7 - Dr. Shailendra Kumar (Deleted) Nil
8 - The Ministry Of Human Resources Development Government Of
India, Through Its Secretary, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi District New
Delhi, Delhi
9 - The Visitor Guru Ghasidas Central University Secretariat Of The
Visitor, President House Secretariat, Raiseena Hills, New Delhi, 110001,
District New Delhi, Delhi
10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, Koni Thana, P.O. Koni, Civil
And Revenue Distt Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, G.A., Ms. Annapurna Tiwari,
CGC, Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Adv. Along
with Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate, Mr.
Shotabdi Bagchi, Advocate and Ms. Ananya
Pandey, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judge ,
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
03.09.2026
1. Heard Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.
Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate for
respondent/State, Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, learned Central
Government Counsel for respondent / UOI, Mr. Ashish

3
Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rahul
Ambast, Mr. Shotabdi Bagchi and Ms. Ananya Pandey, learned
counsel for respondents No.1 & 2.
The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order
2.
dated 11.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S)
No. 9810/2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner
/ appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
3. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the appellant, are that the
appellant, Dr. Pradeep Kumar Shukla, having pursued advanced
research in Bio-Technology at institutions in the United States of
America, was appointed as an Associate Professor in the
Department of Bio-Technology of Guru Ghasidas University,
Bilaspur, vide appointment order dated 15.02.2012 and joined his
duties on 05.03.2012 on probation for a period of two years,
subject to evaluation of his suitability for confirmation in
accordance with the applicable Statutes and Ordinances of the
University. During the initial period of his service, the appellant
claims to have discharged his duties satisfactorily and was
entrusted with various academic and administrative
responsibilities, including that of Research Supervisor, Deputy
Dean of Student Welfare and member of the NAAC Steering
Committee, besides securing sanction of a research project worth
Rs.50,00,000/- from the Ministry of Science and Technology and
obtaining an ‘A’ Grade in student feedback for the academic year
2012-13. According to the appellant, a dispute subsequently arose

4
between him and the then Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Shri Lakshman
Chaturvedi, and following an alleged incident dated 22.04.2013,
the appellant lodged a complaint at Police Station Koni, Bilaspur.
It is alleged that immediately thereafter, the appellant was
threatened with consequences and, between 25.04.2013 and
29.05.2013, as many as six show-cause notices containing
allegations relating to misconduct and indiscipline were issued to
him, to which he submitted detailed replies. During the said
period, his probation was extended by one year vide order dated
27.05.2013; however, notwithstanding such extension, his
services were terminated vide order dated 26.08.2013 on the
ground that his performance during the probationary period was
found to be unsatisfactory. The appellant contends that the
termination was, in substance, punitive and founded upon
allegations of misconduct, though no charge-sheet was issued, no
departmental enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of
hearing was afforded to him. During the pendency of the writ
proceedings, certain reliefs became infructuous by efflux of time
and, after deletion thereof, the matter was registered as W.P.S.
No.9810 of 2025, which came to be dismissed by the learned
Single Judge vide judgment dated 11.05.2026, holding that the
termination order was simpliciter and non-stigmatic and that, since
the order was based on unsatisfactory performance during
probation, no departmental enquiry was required. Aggrieved by
the said judgment and order dated 11.05.2026, the appellant has

5
preferred the present writ appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single
Judge has committed a serious error in dismissing the writ petition
without appreciating the true nature and substance of the
impugned termination order and the antecedent circumstances
leading to its issuance. It is contended that the termination,
though couched in innocuous language as one based upon
“unsatisfactory performance during probation”, was in fact punitive
and founded upon specific allegations of misconduct,
insubordination and indiscipline, as is evident from the series of
show-cause notices issued to the appellant and the subsequent
consideration of the matter by the Executive Council. Learned
counsel would submit that the controversy is squarely covered by
the binding decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Dishan
Singh Dahariya v. State of Chhattisgarh and another, W.A. No.676
of 2022, decided on 02.08.2024, wherein, according to the
appellant, a similarly situated probationer, who had been
subjected to specific allegations and show-cause notices before
being removed by an apparently innocuous order, was held
entitled to the protection of a regular inquiry, and the learned
Single Judge ought to have followed or at least distinguished the
said binding precedent. It is further argued that the learned Single
Judge confined the examination merely to the form and language
of the termination order and failed to undertake the equally
necessary examination of its substance, contrary to the principles

6
laid down by the Supreme Court in Pavanendra Narayan Verma v.
Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences, (2002) 1 SCC 520,
State of Punjab and others v. Constable Avtar Singh, (2008) 7
SCC 405 and Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P., (2000) 5
SCC 152, which permit the Court to lift the veil and ascertain
whether allegations of misconduct constituted merely the motive
or the real foundation of the termination. Learned counsel submits
that, in the present case, the University had issued several show-
cause notices containing definite imputations of misconduct and
indiscipline, obtained and considered the appellant’s explanations
and thereafter placed the matter before the Executive Council,
which ultimately resolved to terminate his services, thereby
demonstrating that the alleged misconduct constituted the
foundation of the impugned action and not merely its motive. It is
also contended that other similarly situated persons were
allegedly subjected to minor penalties, whereas the appellant
alone was visited with termination, without following the
disciplinary procedure prescribed under the relevant Statutes
governing the Central University and its academic staff.
Learned counsel further submits that the reliance placed by the
5.
learned Single Judge upon Rajasthan High Court v. Ved Priya,
(2021) 13 SCC 151 was misplaced, as that case involved an
overall assessment of service performance, whereas no material
demonstrating any genuine or holistic assessment of the
appellant’s teaching, research or academic performance was

7
produced in the present case. On the contrary, according to
learned counsel, the appellant’s academic record, student
feedback, research grant and the University’s own IQAC
evaluation reflected satisfactory and commendable performance.
It is further urged that the appellant’s probation had formally been
extended by one year, yet his services were terminated much
before the expiry of the extended probationary period and shortly
after his resumption of duties from medical leave, without any
meaningful assessment of his academic performance during the
intervening period. Learned counsel also alleges that the entire
action was actuated by mala fides and retaliation following the
appellant’s complaint against the then Vice-Chancellor,
emphasizing the sequence of events, including the alleged threats
and the issuance of several show-cause notices immediately
thereafter, as well as the alleged stoppage of his salary
immediately preceding the termination. It is also argued that the
learned Single Judge failed to examine the appellant’s challenge
regarding the legality of the composition of the Executive Council
which resolved to terminate his services. Learned counsel would
further contend that the University itself, in its communication to
the authorities of the President’s Secretariat, had allegedly
acknowledged the appellant to be one of its good teachers and
researchers, thereby contradicting the subsequent stand that his
performance during probation was unsatisfactory. Lastly, it is
submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to properly

8
appreciate the procedural objections raised by the appellant
regarding the reply subsequently filed by the respondents and the
stand taken therein. On these submissions, learned counsel
contends that the impugned judgment suffers from serious errors
of fact and law, the termination is punitive and arbitrary in its true
character and was passed in violation of the principles of natural
justice and the statutory safeguards applicable to the appellant,
and therefore the impugned judgment as well as the termination
order deserve to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions
6.
made be learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal
and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the
aspects has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ
petitioner / appellant herein, in which, no interference is sought
for.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order and materials available on record.
8. From a perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the
learned Single Judge, taking note of Condition No.7 of the
appellant’s appointment order dated 15.02.2012, held that the
appellant was appointed on probation for a period of two years,
extendable by a further period of one year, and that his services
could be terminated if his performance during probation was
found to be unsatisfactory. The learned Single Judge observed

9
that the impugned termination order dated 26.08.2013 was
passed during the probationary period and merely recorded that
the appellant’s services were found unsatisfactory and that the
Executive Council, in its meeting dated 24.08.2013, had resolved
to terminate his services under the relevant condition of
appointment. Holding that the language of the termination order
did not contain any allegation of misconduct or any expression
rendering it punitive or stigmatic, the learned Single Judge
rejected the contention that the issuance of show-cause notices
prior to termination established that the action was founded upon
misconduct requiring a departmental enquiry. Relying upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan High Court v.
Ved Priya, the learned Single Judge held that termination of a
probationer on the basis of an assessment that his performance
was unsatisfactory did not necessitate a departmental enquiry
under Article 311 of the Constitution, and consequently concluded
that the termination was simpliciter in nature. The judgments
relied upon by the appellant were held to be distinguishable on
facts and, finding no ground to interfere with the termination order,
the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as being
devoid of merit.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered
with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no

10
interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are
noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and
circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we
do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such,
we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
10. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be
and is hereby dismissed .
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha )
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet