Chattisgarh High Court
Shri Ajay Kumar Bareth vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 May, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:21767
NAFR
RAHUL
JHA
Digitally signed
by RAHUL JHA
Date: 2025.05.09
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
18:32:45 +0530
WPS No. 3142 of 2025
1 - Shri Ajay Kumar Bareth S/o Shri Ghasiya Ram Bareth Aged About 45 Years
R/o Village - Harethi, Tehsil - Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.)
Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Social
Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.)
3 - The Collector District- Sakti (C.G.)
4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.)
Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate along with
Ms. Shivali Banshal, Advocate
For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. AG
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
09/05/2025
1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the order dated
23/12/2024 (Annexure-P/1) whereby respondent No.4 has removed the
petitioner from the post of Employment Assistant (Rojgar Sahayak), on
the basis of complaint made by one Jai Kumar Khairwar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Jai Kumar Khairwar.
has lodged a complaint against the petitioner for embezzlement while the
petitioner was discharging his assigned duties. Subsequently, on
18/11/2024, the inquiry report was submitted and the petitioner was
issued a show cause notice, which was replied by him, however, without
conducting and Departmental Inquiry, the impugned order has been
passed. Learned counsel would further submit that 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 inquiry
report, the order impugned has been passed by the Collector. Even the
respondent No.4 has not issued any notice to the petitioner and no
explanation was sought from the petitioner before passing the order
impugned, which is bad in law.. 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.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Committee which has
been appointed by the respondent has afforded sufficient opportunity to
the petitioner by giving a show cause notice and sought explanation.
Hence, there is no need to conduct any Departmental Enquiry. The
Inquiry Team has found the complaint against the petitioner as proved
and therefore, the respondent No.4 has passed the order impugned as
such there is no illegality and infirmity in the order impugned.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Inquiry
Committee report and the order passed by the respondent No.4
(Annexure-P/1).
5. The respondent No.4 while passing the impugned order has fully relied
upon the opinion of the Inquiry Committee and without conducting any
Departmental inquiry, they have passed the impugned order which is a
stigmatic one.
6. 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.
7. 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 23/12/2024 (Annexure P/1) is hereby
quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all the benefits following from
quashment of impugned order dated 23/12/2024. However, liberty is
reserved to the respondent authorities to hold proper enquiry, if so
advised.
8. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent.
Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
Sourabh/
rahul
