1 2025:CGHC:47636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2134 of 2021 1 - Ramanuj Kaushik S/o Shyam Sunder Kaushik Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sambalpuri, Tahsil Sakri , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat , Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Programme Coordinator Through Its Coordination Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (Mgnrga) District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Jila Panchayat Bilaspur Through Its Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchyat Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Janpad Panchayat Tatkatpur Through Its Chief Executive Officer Programme Officer Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Kumar Chandel, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 3 : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, PL For respondent No. 4 & 5 Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 16.09.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s); “10.) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 23.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) and allow the petitioner to work as Rojgar Sahayak with all consequential services benefits. 2 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant all service benefit to the petitioner. 10.3) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit may also be awarded along with cost of the petition.” 2. The case in a nutshell is that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis as Rajogar Sahayak by order dated 27.01.2014 and since then has been discharging his duties with utmost sincerity and honesty, and on the basis of his work and annual confidential reports, his contractual service was extended from time to time in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. The appointment order dated 27.01.2014 clearly stipulates that the service conditions shall be governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, and that the Chhattisgarh State Contract Appointment Rules, 2012 shall also be applicable. Subsequently, only with a view to take revenge, a false complaint was lodged against the petitioner alleging that he had taken money for preparation of job cards under the MGNREGA Scheme. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Takhatpur, without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, recorded the statement of the complainants and forwarded the enquiry report to the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Bilaspur on 24.04.2020. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the Additional Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Bilaspur, issued a show-cause notice dated 28.04.2020, but neither the charge-sheet, documents nor statements of witnesses were furnished to the petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination. The petitioner, however, submitted his reply on 02.05.2020, enclosing documents including details of certain complainants whose job cards had already been prepared. Despite this, relying upon the enquiry report dated 24.04.2020, the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Bilaspur, passed an order dated 20.01.2021 dismissing the petitioner from 3 service, and vide office memo dated 23.02.2021, the said dismissal order was communicated to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Takhatpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 27.01.2014 (Annexure P/2), the petitioner was appointed as Rojgar Sahayak on contract basis in the office of Gram Panchayat Sambhalpuri by respondent No. 5 till 23.02.2021 and his contractual appointment was extended from time to time. He submits that certain villagers made a complaint alleging that the petitioner had taken money for preparation of job cards, whereupon two show-cause notices were issued to him, vide Annexure R/5-3 dated 23.04.2020 and Annexure P/4 dated 28.04.2020. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations and also enclosed a punchnama showing that the job cards had already been provided to the villagers. It further appears that statements of the villagers were recorded, as well as that of the petitioner. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 23.02.2021 (Annexure P/1), the services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect. Learned counsel submits that although show-cause notices were issued alleging monetary demand from villagers for preparation of job cards, the petitioner categorically denied the charges in his reply and supported his defence with a punchnama. However, the villagers’ statements, though recorded, were not supplied to the petitioner, nor was he given any opportunity to cross-examine them. The impugned order, being stigmatic in nature, will seriously prejudice the petitioner’s prospects of securing future employment. Once the allegations involved financial irregularity, it was incumbent upon the respondents to conduct a proper departmental inquiry by framing specific charges and proving them through evidence, which has not been done in this case. The petitioner was 4 denied reasonable opportunity, including cross-examination of witnesses, and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. Opposing the submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 & 5 submits that upon receipt of the complaint from the villagers alleging that the petitioner had taken money for preparing job cards, an inquiry was conducted wherein the statements of both the petitioner and the villagers were recorded. In his statement, the petitioner admitted that he had not apprised the villagers that the money collected was towards an insurance scheme and not for issuance of job cards. Thus, it stands admitted by the petitioner himself that he had accepted money from the villagers. Consequently, a report (Annexure R/4) was submitted holding the complaint to be proved, and in compliance thereof, the impugned order was passed. 5. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. From a perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner was appointed on contract vide order dated 27.01.2014 (Annexure P/2) and his contractual employment continued. Thereafter, certain complaints were made by the villagers alleging that the petitioner had received money for preparation of job cards. The return filed by the respondents does not disclose the detailed procedure of any inquiry conducted; rather, it only encloses the punchnama and statements of various villagers. From the material placed on record, it does not appear that the petitioner was ever afforded an opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses whose statements were relied upon by respondent No. 5 to hold that the petitioner had taken money. On the contrary, the reply to the show-cause notice clearly indicates the petitioner’s categorical denial of 5 having taken any money from the villagers. When an allegation of receiving money is made and the statements of villagers form the basis of termination, it was incumbent upon respondent No. 5 to afford the petitioner a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and defend himself. Until and unless such opportunity is granted, it cannot be held that the principles of natural justice have been followed. The order of termination being stigmatic in nature will undoubtedly prejudice the petitioner’s prospects of future employment. 8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 23.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. The same is, therefore, set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service. The writ petition is allowed. Consequence to follow. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.09.23 10:46:32 +0530