Ramgopal Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the app
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:7634-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 112 of 2025 Ramgopal Kashyap S/o Shri Kapil Ram Kashyap, aged about 35 years R/o Village- Lalpur Kala, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, Tahsil Lormi, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) versus ... Appellant 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Panchayat and Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Mungeli District- Mungeli Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 5 - Program Officer Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant For respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.02.13 16:37:30 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13 . 02 .202 5 1. Heard Ms. Diksha Gouraha, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State / respondents on I.A. No. 02 of 2025, 2 which is an application for condonation of delay of 170 days in filing the present appeal. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act,
Decision
2006, the appellant, who was the writ petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.9142 of 2019 (Ramgopal Kashyap Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the appellant / writ petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Rojgar Sahayak and was posted at Gram Panchayat - Lalpur Kala in Janpad Panchayat-Lormi District- Mungeli vide order dated 02.07.2010 (Annexure P/1). On the basis of ACR, the service of the appellant was extended for a period of one year for each succeeding year and he continued working till September, 2019. On 05.03.2019, the State Government extended the service of the Rojgar Sahayak and other employees from 01.03.2019 to 29.02.2020 for implementation of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment 3 Guarantee Scheme run by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department. On 31.07.2019, as per the order dated 05.03.2019, the contractual service of the temporary contractual post of “Gram Rozgar Sahayak” approved at the Gram Panchayat Level under MNREGA was extended from 01.03.2019 to 29.02.2020. In the month of October, 2019, by an oral order, the appellant was directed not to come for his duties without serving any order of termination of his service in this regard. On 05.10.2019 (Annexure P/6), certificate was issued mentioning that the appellant worked with honesty and dedication in Gram Panchayat Lalpur (Kalon) from 02.07.2019 to 25.09.2019 and the work done by him is very good & after 25.09.2019, Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Lormi and Program Officer, District- Panchayat Lormi refused to take work from the appellant. Hence, the appellant has filed a writ petition before this Court being WPS No. 9142 of 2019, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 13.06.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the correct facts and ground and had ignored the vital issue as the show-cause-notice issued by the respondents to the appellant and in pursuance thereof the reply filed by the appellant and service conditions of appointment order of the appellant. As per additional document submitted by the appellant (Annexure P/10 in writ petition), the information 4 under RTI dated 28.05.2020 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Lormi whereby inter-alia mentioned no notice has been issued by this office prior to termination nor one month salary, which is the violation of the rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012. She further submitted that the action of the respondent authorities is in violation of principles of natural Justice & terms and conditions of the appointment order dated 02-07-2010 as well as C.G. Civil Service (Contract appointment) Rule. In the month of October 2019 by an oral order, petitioner was directed not to come for his duties. Neither any order of termination nor any other order was served to the petitioner in this regard. The action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the well-settled law and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. She also submitted that action of the respondent authorities is in violation of the Panchayat Act as well as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and before recording the finding against the petitioner, even no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. No punitive order can be passed against any person without giving proper opportunity of hearing. The impugned action and awards are beyond the powers and competence of the respondent authorities and are bad in law. In support of her contention, she placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139. 5 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly dismissed the writ petition, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record, it transpires that on 02.07.2010 the appellant was appointed on the post of Rojgar Sahayak on contract basis, initially for academic session (1 year) and on the basis of his ACR, the service of the appellant was continuously being extended. But, in the year 2018 his work was found unsatisfactory therefore he was served with several notices to improve his work quality but none of the notices was replied by the appellant. The appellant was very negligent in respect of his work. In April, 2019, the appellant was served with three show cause notices by the respondent authorities in respect of his negligence in the work but none of the notices were replied by the appellant. On 03.05.2019, a final show cause notice was issued to the appellant by respondent No.4 i.e. Zila Panchayat, Mungeli which was replied by the appellant. Respondent authorities did not satisfy with the reply of appellant and gave its recommendation to not to extend the service of the appellant which was approved by respondent No.2/Collector District Mungeli. Copy of the recommendation and 6 approval of respondent No.2 is annexed as Annexure-R/5. The impugned order passed by the respondent authorities is well reasoned and in accordance with law. The appellant was given full opportunity of hearing but he did not reply any of them. The work of the appellant was not satisfactory and he was negligent in respect of his work. In ACR, there were also adverse remarks in respect to the work of appellant. The appellant was given full opportunity of hearing and his service was terminated after the approval of Respondent No.2 Collector. The appellant’s engagement was purely on contractual basis which was terminated having found the work of appellant unsatisfactory. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable to the facts of the present case. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra