Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:19318 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6204 of 2021 1 - Aneshwar Nishad S/o Shri Panch Ram, Aged About 33 Years Working As Rojgar Sahayak At Gram Panchayat Kharra, Janpad Panchayat Gundardehi, Police Station Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.04.30 10:28:37 +0530 versus Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Gundardehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 5 - Program Officer Gunderdehi, Janpad Panchayat Gundardehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner(s) For State For Resp. Nos. 3, 4 & 5 : Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, Advocate : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, PL (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 2 29/04/2025 1. The Petitioner was appointed as Rojgar Sahayak on contractual basis in the year 2008 under Mahatma Gandhi Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short MGNREGA) at Gram Panchayat Kharra, for a period of one year and subsequently, his period was extended from time to time. 2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the order dated 14/11/2019 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Gundardehi has removed/terminated the petitioner from the post of Rojgar Sahayak on the basis of inquiry report submitted to the Chief Executive Officer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Smt. Mamta Tiwari has lodged a complaint for non-cooperation with the members of Gram Panchayat and misbehavior with the elected members against the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an inquiry who after conducting the inquiry submitted its report to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balod. Subsequently, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balod has issued the notice to the petitioner, which was replied by him denying the allegations levelled against him. However, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balod, without looking into the reply filed by the petitioner and without initiating any Departmental Enquiry, only on the basis of inquiry report, passed the impugned order by terminating the petitioner from service. Learned counsel submits that 3
Decision
the impugned order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order, by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Rojgar Sahayak only on the basis of report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel would further submit that though the petitioner was appointed as contractual employee, but the order of termination is stigmatic order, which appears from the order itself and before termination or removing the petitioner from service, the respondent’s authority has to conduct a Departmental Inquiry and has to give sufficient opportunity of hearing and subsequently by observing principals of natural justice, they can take necessary action against the petitioner, whereas, in the present case, the respondents’ authority have not conducted any departmental inquiry and only on the basis of the inquiry report, the order impugned has been passed. Learned counsel has relied the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in WPS No. 8212/2023 decided on 03/01/2023 and submits that the removal or termination of a contractual appointee, if any stigmatic order is to be passed, the Departmental Enquiry is must. 4. Learned counsel for the State as well as respondent No. 3, 4 & 5 submits that before passing the impugned order, the respondents have afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice and sought explanation, which the petitioner has replied too. Hence, there is no need to conduct any Departmental Enquiry. The Inquiry Officer has found the complaint against the petitioner as proved and therefore, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balod has passed the order impugned as such there is no illegality and infirmity in 4 the order impugned. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balod (Annexure-P/1). 6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balod while passing the impugned order has fully relied upon the opinion of the Inquiry Officer and without affording any opportunity of hearing, the impugned order has been passed by a non-speaking and unreasoned order. Even the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balod did not explain about the opinion of the Inquiry Officer and did not consider the explanation given by the petitioner. Further it appears that neither any departmental inquiry was conducted not any notice was issued before passing the order of termination. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139 decided on 22.08.2024, in which the ratio laid down by the Apex Court is to the fact that even if for contractual appointment, if any stigmatic order is to be passed, it is to be passed after holding proper enquiry and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned delinquent/employee. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 4969/2015 in the matter of Digambar Chandrakar vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others decided on 22.08.2024 and in the said case 5 also, this Court of the view that in order to pass a stigmatic or cumulative order, the concerned authorities are required to hold a departmental enquiry after giving due opportunity of hearing to delinquent/ employee. 8. Taking into consideration of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court and for the reasons and discussions made here-in- above, the impugned order dated 14/11/2019 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all the benefits following from quashment of impugned order dated 14/11/2019. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to hold proper enquiry, if so advised. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. Rahul Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE