Chattisgarh High Court
Aneshwar Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 April, 2025
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,
Digitally
Chhattisgarh
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL JHA
JHA Date:
2025.04.30
Petitioner(s)
10:28:37
versus
+0530
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)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate
For State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, PL
For Resp. Nos. 3, 4 & 5 : Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, Advocate
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
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
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
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
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.
Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
Rahul
