1 2025:CGHC:9219 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(S) No. 2580 of 2018 • Ku. Punam Yadav D/o Shri Bucha Ram Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Sivildag P.S. Kusmi, Tahsil Kusmi, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramnujganj Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Kusmi, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 5. District Program Officer, Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 2 & 5/State For Respondent No. 3 : : Mr. Law Sharma, Panel Lawyer Mr. Anirudh Singh, Advocate holding the brief Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21/02/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the 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 02-02-2018 (ANNEXURE P-1) Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (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 the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 2. Mr. A.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Rojgaar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Sivildag, Janpad Panchayat Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) on 15.02.2010 on a contract basis. He would contend that the period of the contract was extended from time to time. It is argued that vide order dated 02.02.2018, the petitioner was removed from services on an oral order of Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balrampur-Ramanujganj. He would further submit that no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, therefore, the order is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. He would refer to Clause 13 of the Circular dated 30.07.2014 issued by the Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Parishad, which provides for the procedure for removal of Rojgaar Sahayak. He would further contend that on the recommendation of the District Program Coordinator/Collector, the decision can be taken by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat to remove Rojgaar Sahayak. He would also submit that in the present case, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kusmi directly issued the order of removal which is stigmatic and contrary to law. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Law Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents No. 1, 2 and 5/State and Mr. Anirudh Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 would oppose. They would 3 submit that an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner after receiving a complaint. They would further contend that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, but she failed to appear before the authority concerned, therefore, the order impugned was passed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Clause 13 of the Circular dated 30.07.2014 issued by the Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Parishad reads as under:- “13- xzke jkstxkj lgk;d ds fo:) vfu;ferrk @ drZO; ds izfr ykijokgh dh tkudkjh izkIr gksus ij eq[; dk;kZikyu vf/kdkjh tuin iapk;r }kjk lacaf/kr xzke jkstxkj lgk;d dks lquokbZ dk volj iznku fd;k tk;sxk A izdj.k esa xzke jkstxkj lgk;d nks"kh ik;s tkus ij ftyk dk;Zdze leUo;d @ dysDVj ls vuqeksnu izkIr dj eq[; dk;kZikyu vf/kdkjh tuin iapk;r }kjk xzke jkstxkj lgk;d dks in ls i`Fkd djus dh dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxh A” 6. In the present case, the opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner before passing the order impugned dated 02.02.2018. From a perusal of the documents, it is apparent that a complaint was made against the petitioner by 40-50 villagers and an enquiry was conducted, but that enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was provided. 7. A perusal of the order dated 02.02.2018 would show that on 02.02.2018 itself, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balrampur-Ramanujganj visited Gram Panchayat Sivildag and issued an oral order for the dismissal of services of the petitioner. It is quite vivid that respondents No. 3 and 4 have not followed the procedure contemplated in the Circular dated 30.07.2014 while passing the order impugned. 8. A bare perusal of the impugned order of termination would manifest that the petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect. The 4 order does not refer to any show cause notice or enquiry, wherein, the petitioner was allowed to participate. It is per se in violation of the principles of natural justice, which is clearly established from the language of the order of termination itself, therefore, for the reason that no order adverse to an individual be passed without following the principles of natural justice, as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 4072), therefore the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the competent authority to take appropriate action after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. It is also made clear that the observations made in the preceding paragraphs of this order shall not be construed in favour of either party and any action or proceeding initiated against the petitioner, after the issuance of show cause notice, shall be decided strictly in accordance with its own merits and law. 10. With regard to arrears of salary, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before respondent No. 4 and the authority concerned is directed to decide it strictly in accordance with the law. 11. With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti