1 2025:CGHC:38194 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1979 of 2023 Surendra Kumar Singh S/o Shatruhan Singh Aged About 39 Years Working As Technical Assistant, At Janpad Panchayat Lormi, P.S. Lormi District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayat Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 5 - Program Officer (Mgnarega) Lormi, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.3 to 5 Mr. Navoday Singh, Advocate on behalf of Yashwant Singh Thakur, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 01.08.2025 1 Heard Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Vivek Mishra, learnead Panel Lawyer for the YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.04 18:58:32 +0530 2 State/respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Mr. Navoday Singh, learned counsel on behalf of Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 5. 2 The petitioner has filed this petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to the present case. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may please to quash the impugned order dated 13.02.2023 (ANNEXURE P-1) Passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat Mungeli District Mungeli (C.G.). 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass fit any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 3 Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed on the substantive post of Technical Assistant and was posted at Janpad Panchayat – Lormi, District Mungeli. On 24.01.2023, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice by respondent No.4, calling for a reply within one day regarding alleged lack of progress in MGNREGA works. The petitioner promptly submitted a detailed reply, denying the allegations and explaining that the Panchayat’s ID and password were non-functional, which led to technical issues in work reporting. Despite the explanation, without conducting any departmental enquiry or supplying relevant 3 documents or the proposal dated 10.02.2023 of Janpad Panchayat, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat Mungeli (respondent No.3), passed an order dated 13.02.2023 terminating the petitioner’s services. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 13.02.2023 is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The petitioner cannot be terminated from service without being afforded an opportunity of hearing and such action is violative of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order without adhering to the instructions and procedure formulated under the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) and the impugned order is also in violation of the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and the MGNREGA guidelines. It has been contended that on 24.01.2023, respondent No.4 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner calling for a reply within a single day. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying the allegations and clarified that the Panchayat’s login credentials (ID and password) were not functional, which affected the progress of work. The conduct of the respondent authorities is clearly violative of the principles of natural justice. It has been further contended that respondent No.3 did not provide any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The petitioner was not permitted to present his case in any effective 4 manner. The impugned order is violative of the doctrine of audi alteram partem, as no proper hearing was granted to the petitioner before recording adverse findings against him. The nature of the impugned termination order amounts to imposition of a major penalty, which could not have been imposed without conducting a departmental enquiry. It has been submitted that the petitioner was granted only one day to respond to the last show-cause notice, which is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to service rules and fair procedure. The termination order dated 13.02.2023 is violative of the terms and conditions of the appointment order and also contrary to the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules and C.G. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and the entire action of the respondent authority is contrary to the principles of natural justice and fairness, which needs to be set aside. 5 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner, during the course of his employment as Technical Assistant, consistently failed to discharge his official duties in a responsible and timely manner. Despite being issued multiple show-cause notices dated 21.02.2018, 05.11.2019, 02.03.2022, 02.11.2022, and 17.01.2023 by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, the petitioner neither improved his conduct nor submitted any reply to the said notices, thereby showing persistent disregard and negligence toward his official responsibilities. In view of the 5 continued non-compliance and indifference of the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mungeli, by communication dated 09.02.2023, requesting appropriate action against the petitioner. He further submits that in accordance with the principles of natural justice, further notices dated 10.11.2022, 06.10.2022, and 12.01.2023 were issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mungeli, providing the petitioner an opportunity to explain his position. The petitioner did submit his reply; however, after due consideration, his response was found to be unsatisfactory and evasive. No plausible explanation was given for his repeated failure to complete assigned work or comply with instructions issued by the competent authority. It is further submitted that the petitioner's conduct demonstrated habitual negligence, lack of interest in official work, and non-compliance with directions issued under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) as well as the administrative instructions of the Panchayat Department. In light of the above facts, and in exercise of powers conferred under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2012, the petitioner’s services were rightly discontinued by the impugned order dated 13.02.2023. The action is neither punitive nor stigmatic in nature, but a result of continued unsatisfactory performance and failure to comply with the terms and conditions of appointment. It is submitted that due process was followed at each stage, and ample opportunities were 6 provided to the petitioner to respond and improve his performance. Hence, the termination is lawful, justified, and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Therefore, the present petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 6 Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 5 submits that the petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis to the post of Technical Assistant under Janpad Panchayat – Lormi, District Mungeli. During the tenure of his service, the petitioner persistently failed to complete official duties within the prescribed time, violated office instructions, and showed a lack of interest in official work. Despite being issued several show-cause notices dated 21.02.2018, 05.11.2019, 02.03.2022, 02.11.2022, and 17.01.2023 by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, the petitioner failed to submit any reply, demonstrating disregard and negligence towards his duties. No improvement was noticed in his work performance. In view of the continuous misconduct and unsatisfactory service, a communication dated 09.02.2023 was sent to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mungeli, recommending appropriate action against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued further notices dated 06.10.2022, 10.11.2022, and 12.01.2023 by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mungeli, calling upon him to submit a reply. Though the petitioner submitted responses, they were duly considered and found unsatisfactory. Accordingly, in compliance with the applicable service norms and as per the 7 provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2012, the services of the petitioner were discontinued vide the impugned order dated 13.02.2023, due to his consistent poor performance and indifference to duties. It is submitted that the termination was not punitive in nature but was purely administrative, based on continued unsatisfactory performance, and carried out after providing sufficient opportunity. Due process was followed at every stage, and principles of natural justice were duly observed. 7 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 8 The Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble Supreme 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 8 departmental enquiry after giving due opportunity of hearing to delinquent/ employee. 9 The view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini (supra) goes to show that before passing any stigmatic order for removal of any employee from service, a departmental enquiry is required to be done, which has not been done in this case. In para 34 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “34. It is profitable to refer to what five learned Judges of this Court laid down in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 5: "28. The position may, therefore, be summed up as follows: Any and every termination of service is not a dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. A termination of service brought about by the exercise of a contractual right is not per se dismissal or removal, as has been held by this Court in Satish Chander Anand v. Union of India [(1953) 1 SCC 420: 1953 SCR 655]. Likewise the termination of service by compulsory retirement in terms of a specific rule regulating the conditions of service is not tantamount to the infliction of a punishment and does not attract Article 311(2), as has also been held by this Court in Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1954) 1 SCC 572: (1955) 1 SCR 26]. In either of the two abovementioned cases 9 the termination of the service did not carry with it the penal consequences of loss of pay, or allowances under Rule 52 of the Fundamental Rules. It is true that the misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification may be the motive or the inducing factor which influences the Government to take action under the terms of the contract of employment or the specific service rule, nevertheless, if a right exists, under the contract or the rules, to terminate the service the motive operating on the mind of the Government is, as Chagla, C.J., has said in Shrinivas Ganesh v. Union of India, [58 Bom LR 673: AIR 1956 Bom 455] wholly irrelevant. In short, if the termination of service is founded on the right flowing from contract or the service rules then, prima facie, the termination is not a punishment and carries with it no evil consequences and so Article 311 is not attracted. But even if the Government has, by contract or under the rules, the right to terminate the employment without going through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to punish the servant and if the termination of service is sought to be founded on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of Article 10 311 must be complied with. As already stated if the servant has got a right to continue in the post, then, unless the contract of employment or the rules provide to the contrary, his services cannot be terminated otherwise than for misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other good and sufficient cause. A termination of the service of such a servant on such grounds must be a punishment and, therefore, a dismissal or removal within Article 311, for it operates as a forefeiture of his right and he is visited with the evil consequences of loss of pay and allowances. It puts an indelible stigma on the officer affecting his future career. A reduction in rank likewise may be by way of punishment or it may be an innocuous thing. If the government servant has a right to a particular rank, then the very reduction from that rank will operate as a penalty, for he will then lose the emoluments and privileges of that rank. If, however, he has no right to the particular rank, his reduction from an officiating higher rank to his substantive lower rank will not ordinarily be a punishment. But the mere fact that the servant has no title to the post or the rank and the Government has, by contract, express or implied, or under the rules, the right to reduce him to a lower post does not mean that an order of reduction of a servant to a lower post or rank cannot in any circumstances be a 11 punishment. The real test for determining whether the reduction in such cases is or is not by way of punishment is to find out if the order for the reduction also visits the servant with any penal consequences. Thus if the order entails or provides for the forfeiture of his pay or allowances or the loss of his seniority in his substantive rank or the stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion, then that circumstance may indicate that although in form the Government had purported to exercise its right to terminate the employment or to reduce the servant to a lower rank under the terms of the contract of employment or under the rules, in truth and reality the Government has terminated the employment as and by way of penalty. The use of the expression "terminate" or "discharge" is not conclusive. In spite of the use of such innocuous expressions, the court has to apply the two tests mentioned above, namely, (1) whether the servant had a right to the post or the rank, or (2) whether he has been visited with evil consequences of the kind hereinbefore referred to? If the case satisfies either of the two tests then it must be held that the servant has been punished and the termination of his service must be taken as a dismissal or removal from service or the reversion to his substantive rank must be regarded as a reduction in rank and if the 12 requirements of the rules and Article 311, which give protection to government servant have not been complied with, the termination of the service or the reduction in rank must be held to be wrongful and in violation of the constitutional right of the servant." 10 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account that a proper opportunity of hearing entails not only receiving a reply but also granting a fair hearing and conducting a proper inquiry, none of which have been duly complied with in the present case, the impugned termination order cannot be sustained. Upon consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the process culminating in the impugned termination order dated 13.02.2023 suffers from serious procedural irregularities. It is well settled that opportunity of hearing is not a mere formality. Compliance with the principles of natural justice requires not only issuing a show-cause notice, but also ensuring that: • Sufficient time is provided to respond to the allegations; • All relevant documents/materials relied upon are made available to the affected party; • A fair and impartial inquiry is conducted where the charges are of a serious or repetitive nature; and • The explanation/reply submitted is considered in a reasoned manner. 13 11 In the present case, though some show-cause notices were issued, the material on record reveals that the petitioner was neither given adequate time to respond nor was any proper inquiry conducted. Furthermore, the decision to discontinue the petitioner's contractual services appears to have been taken in a mechanical manner, without effective application of mind to the explanation offered by the petitioner. 12 In view of the above precedents and legal position in Swati Priyadarshini (supra) and Digambar Chandrakar (supra), and in the absence of a fair inquiry or adequate opportunity of hearing, the impugned termination order dated 13.02.2023 is liable to be and is hereby set-aside/quashed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings afresh, in accordance with law and rules applicable, after giving the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing and following due process of law. 13 With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh