1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2286 of 2021 1 - Omkar Jaiswal S/o Nandu Ram Aged About 29 Years Working As Rojgar Sahayak, Gram Panchayat Junapara, Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Captial Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Program Officer Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the present case. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may please to quash the impugned order dated 26-02-2021 (ANNEXURE P-1) Passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat-Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under -2- the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, who was posted as Rojgar Sahayak under Gram Panchayat, Junapra in Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) was removed from services vide order dated 26.02.2021 by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Commissioner MGNREGA vide its communication dated 28.09.2018 amended the procedure for removal of Rojgar Sahayak. He would further submit that according to said communication, the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, if receives a complaint against a Rojgar Sahayak, he will conduct an inquiry and will submit its report before the Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, who will be disciplinary authority to inflict penalty. He would contend that in the present case, the inquiry was conducted by the Social Education Organization, Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur, Technical Assistant, Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur and Assistant Grade-III, Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur. He would further contend that as the inquiry was conducted contrary to the communication dated 28.09.2018, the order dated 26.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) is bad in law. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 would oppose submissions. He would submit that a show cause notice was issued and thereafter, inquiry was conducted. He would further submit that the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat delegated power to the Social 3 Education Organization, Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur, Technical Assistant, Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur and Assistant Grade-III, Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur vide order dated 22.07.2020 to conduct an inquiry and pursuant to said order, inquiry was conducted. He would contend that in the inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and therefore, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat exercising power according to communication dated 28.09.2018 inflicted penalty. It is also contended by Mr. Dubey that though a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and reply was filed but this fact has been suppressed by the petitioner and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kusha Duruka Vs. State of Odisha, reported in 2024(4) SCC 432, wherein para 3 held as under : “3. In K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, reported in 2008 (12) SCC 481, it was observed by this Court: (SCC p. 493, para 39) "39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs.3 is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court." 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. -4- 6. It is argued by Mr. Dubey that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands as in the writ petition, it is nowhere stated that a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and reply was filed. In the present case, there is violation of procedure prescribed to inflict penalty or major penalty on Rojgar Sahayak. It is true that a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and a reply was filed. 7. In the matter of K.D. Sharma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an applicant who does not come with candid facts and ‘clean breast’ cannot hold a writ of the court with ‘Soiled hands”. 8. In the present case, the petitioner failed to disclose the factum of service of notice and filing of reply and on this ground alone, the writ petition filed by the petitioner cannot be dismissed, when the procedure prescribed to impose a penalty has not been followed. 9. A perusal of the communication dated 28.09.2018 would make it clear that when complaint with regard to financial irregularities against Rojgar Sahahyak is received by the Chief Executive Officer, he shall conduct an inquiry and thereafter, forward it report to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat shall issue a show cause notice to such Rojgar Sahayak and provide an opportunity of hearing. The relevant part of the communication dated 28.09.2018 is reproduced herein below : " विषयांतर्ग त संदर्भि त पत्र के माध्यांमा सं माहात्मा र्गधी राष्ट्रीयां ग्रामाण राजर्गरा र्गराटी यांजना अंतर्ग त ग्रामा राजर्गरा संहायांके# के$ यांग्यांत, विनायां&क्ति(त ए पद संमाप्ति+त के संबंधी मा- विनाद.श दिदयां र्गयां हा1। ग्रामा राजर्गरा संहायांके# के पद सं प3थके 5 केराना के संबंधी मा- पत्र के$ के वि5के 13 मा- विनाम्नाना&संरा संशधीना विकेयां जत हा1- 1. ग्रामा राजर्गरा संहायांके के विरुद्ध अंविनायांमिमातत / केत व्य के प्रवित लापराहा के$ जनाकेरा प्र+त हाना परा मा&ख्यां केयां पलाना अंमिधीकेरा जनापद पचायांत द्वारा जचा के$ जर्ग। जचा मा- दष पयां जना परा जचा प्रवितदना मा&ख्यां केयां पलाना अंमिधीकेरा जिजला पचायांत के प्रविषत के$ जयांर्ग। 2. मा&ख्यां केयां पलाना अंमिधीकेरा, जिजला पचायांत द्वारा संबंमिधीत ग्रामा राजर्गरा संहायांके के उ(त प्रकेराण के संबंधी मा- केराण बंतओं संCचाना जरा केरा उन्हा अंपना पक्ष राखना के अंसंरा प्रदना विकेयां जर्ग। 3. मा&ख्यां केयां पलाना अंमिधीकेरा जिजला पचायांत द्वारा के$ र्गई सं&नाई मा- दष पयां जना परा जिजला केयां क्रमा संमान्यांके/ केला(टीरा सं अंना&मादना उपरात मा&ख्यां केयां पलाना अंमिधीकेरा जनापद पचायांत द्वारा पद सं प3थके केराना के$ केयां हा के$ जर्ग।" 10.In the present case, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat after receipt of complaint against the petitioner, constituted a team to conduct an inquiry. 11.It is a well-settled principle of law that when the authority is notified or conferred with the power to conduct an inquiry, such power cannot be sub-delegated. 12.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, order dated 26.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for reinstatement in service forthwith, without back wages. The respondent No.3 would be at liberty to initiate a fresh inquiry strictly in accordance with communication dated 30.07.2014 and 28.09.2018, if so advised. 13.With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha