1 - Chandravati W/o Shri Anand Kumar Aged About 28 Years Working As Rojgar v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.04.05 17:06:15 +0530 2025:CGHC:15316 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4985 of 2019 1 - Chandravati W/o Shri Anand Kumar Aged About 28 Years Working As Rojgar Sahayak At Gram Panchayat Tugwa, Janpad Panchayat Wadrfnagar And District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Balrampur Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Wadrfnagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayat Balrampur Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 5 - District Program Officer Balrampur, Zila Panchayat Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents 2 WPS No. 5026 of 2019
Legal Reasoning
1 - Sharda Singh Saruta D/o Shri Prasad Ram Aged About 25 Years Working As Rojgar Sahayak At Gram Panchayat Sulsuli, Janpad Panchayat, Wadrfnagar And District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Balrampur Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Wadrfnagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Balrampur Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 5 - District Program Officer Balrampur, Zila Panchayat Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Petitioners For Respondents No. 1 and 2 For Respondents No. 3 and 4 : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Adv. : Ms. Anuradha Jain, PL : Mr. Devesh Verma, Adv. 3 (Hon’ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 1/04/2025 1 Since issue involved in both these cases is one and the same,
Decision
therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. For convenience, WPS No. 4985/2019 is being treated as lead case. 2 These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred by the petitioners challenging order (Annexure P-1) dated 24-6-2019 passed by the respondent No. 3/Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Wadrafnagar, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj, whereby employment of the petitioners from the post of Rojgar Sahayak has been terminated. 3 Facts of the case in nutshell are that, petitioners were appointed vide separate orders (Annexure P-3) dated 24-3-2017 on the post of Rojgar Sahayak of Gram Panchayat, Tugva/Sulsuli respectively, District Balrampur- ramanujganj with effect from 28-2-2018. On complaints received against the petitioners that, they are negligent to their work, did not achieve target, they also did not engage labourers in work, and did not take interest in the progress of work in Gram Panchayat, various show cause notices were issued to them, despite that, they did not respond the notices, as such, vide impugned order Annexure P-1, their employment was terminated by respondent No. 3, which has been challenged in instant writ petition. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though, as 4 per impugned orders itself, issuance of notices to show cause has been mentioned in it, but only two notices were served to them i.e. one notice dated 8-5-2018 which has been replied by them vide Annexure P-5 dated 10-5-2019 and another notice which was replied by them and which was received in the office of respondent No. 4 on 13-6-2019. Despite submitting reply by the petitioners, without considering their reply and without providing due opportunity of hearing, their employment has been terminated, therefore, he prayed that the relief sought by the petitioners may be granted. 5 The respondents No. 3 and 4, who are main contesting party in instant petitions, have filed their reply. Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4, while referring to their reply would submit that, appointments of petitioners was made on the post of Rojgar Sahayak under the MNREGA on contract basis under the CG Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 (henceforth, referred to as ‘Rule, 2012’). Under the Rules, 2012, CG Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 is applicable on the petitioners. It is further contended that, various complaints were received against the petitioners that, they are negligent to their work, not taking interest in the work progress in Gram Panchayat and they also did not engage labourers in work, as such, they have not achieved the target, therefore, various show cause notices were issued to the petitioners, but they did not respond. Therefore, their employment has been terminated. Since, petitioners themselves did not respond the notices issued to them, therefore, it cannot be said that opportunity of hearing has not been provided to them, hence, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 6 The respondents No. 1 and 2 have also filed their reply stating 5 inter alia that, relief sought for by the petitioners are mainly against the respondents No. 3 and 4 and not against the State, therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the State extended his support to the contention made by learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and 4. 7 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8 Undisputedly, the petitioners were appointed on the post of Rojgar Sahayak of Gram Panchayat, Tugva/Sulsuli respectively, District, Balrampur – Ramanujgang vide Annexures P-3 dated 24-3-2017. As per impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 24-6-2019, various infirmities with regard to their duties were found like, they are negligent to their work, did not achieve target, they also did not engage labourers in work, and did not take interest in the progress of work in Gram Panchayat. It is reflected from impugned orders Annexure P-1 dated 24-6-2019 that, petitioners were issued various show cause notices i.e. on 24-4-2019, 29-4-2019, 9-5-2019, 22-5-2019 and 8-5-2019, but the same were not responded by petitioners. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have filed alleged notices, but service report has not been filed, rather, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that, only two notices were served to them i.e. one notice dated 8-5-2018 which has been replied by them vide Annexure P-5 dated 10-5-2019 and another notice which was replied by them and which was received in the office of respondent No. 4 on 13-6-2019, but without considering their reply, the impugned orders have been passed by respondent No. 3. As such, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is found to be correct that, without providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, their 6 employment has been terminated vide impugned orders Annexure P-1 dated 24-6-2019. 9 It is trite law that, if any order is passed against an employee having civil consequences and stigmatic, then concerned employee ought to have been given due opportunity of hearing. 10 In the case of O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and another [(1987) 4 SCC 328] Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized the principle that any order which would cause adverse civil consequences, can only be passed upon observance of the rules of Natural Justice. There is, therefore, insistence upon requirement of a “fair hearing”. 11 In S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and others [(1980) 4 SCC 379], the Supreme Court has held that the old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away and now even an administrative order, if involves civil consequences, must comply with the rules of natural justice and further held that everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence. 12 In instant case, ground of termination of petitioners are that, they were negligent to their work, did not achieve target, they also did not engage labourers in work, and did not take interest in the progress of work in Gram Panchayat, various show cause notices were issued to them, despite that, they did not respond the notices. But the respondents No. 3 and 4 have not filed any service report to show that all notices were ever served to them. Rather, only two notices were served to them i.e. one notice dated 8-5-2018 7 which has been replied by them vide Annexure P-5 dated 10-5-2019 and another notice which was replied by them and which was received in the office of respondent No. 4 on 13-6-2019, but the same have not been considered. In view of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, petitioners ought to have been granted due opportunity of hearing by providing documents to them in respect of alleged allegations, but no such opportunity has been provided to them and, impugned orders have been passed against them, which, in view of above discussion and law rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court, is bad in law. 13 In view of above discussion, the instant petitions are allowed to the extent that orders Annexure P-1 dated 24-6-2019 passed by respondent No. 3 are set aside. However, respondents No. 3 and 4 are at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law and further take decision for continuation of service of petitioners. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed 14 of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak