1 2025:CGHC:21732 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3400 of 2017 Order Reserved on : 04.03.2025 Order Delivered on : 09.05.2025  Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Shanti Raod, Ward No. 5, Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Zila Panchayat Surajpur, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Collector Cum District Programme Coordinator, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Commissioner, Surguja Division Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur). 2 6. Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Indravati Bhawan, Block No. 2, 2nd Floor, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents And WPS No. 3454 of 2017  Mansay Sidar S/o Maniram Sidar Aged About 40 Years R/o Block Colony, Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Manhanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District New Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2. Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Zila Panchayat Surajpur Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 4. Collector Cum District Programme Coordinatior, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 5. Commissioner, Surguja Division Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 6. Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Imdravati Bhawan, Block No. 2, 2nd Floor, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Arpan Verma, counsel on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjape, counsel. For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. 3 (Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey) C A V Order 1. Since the common issue is involved in the aforesaid petitions, they are being heard and disposed off by this order. 2. The petitioners have preferred these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction to the respondent authorities to comply with the order dated 04.07.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division Ambikapur (C.G.), set aside the order of termination dated 08.05.2017 (Annexure P- 1) passed by the Collector-cum-District Project Co-ordinate (MANREGA), District Surajpur as also order dated 14.07.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi Narega, Naya Raipur (C.G.). 3. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners were initially appointed on the post of Programme Officer under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme on contractual basis for a period of one year and their services were extended till 08.05.2017. During their tenure, a show cause notice was issued to them by the District Programme Coordinator that the work of the petitioners is not satisfactory and they have committed certain irregularities and as to why their services be not terminated. The petitioners duly replied to the show cause notice giving parawise reply. Thereafter, The Collector-cum- District Programme Coordinator, being not found the reply of the petitioners satisfactory, vide order dated 08.05.2017 terminated 4 the services of the petitioners refusing to extend the services holding negligence in MGANREGA work on the part of the petitioners and not making expected progress in the work. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 27 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 against the order of termination dated 08.05.2017 before the Divisional Commissioner, Surguja Division Ambikapur. The Commissioner vide order 04.07.2017, set aside the order of termination dated 08.05.2017, and directed for reinstatement of the petitioners in service. Thereafter, the petitioners made many representations for compliance of the order dated 04.07.2017 but no order has been passed for their joining and a guidance was sought by the Chief Executive Officer regarding maintainability of the appeal and in reply, order dated 14.07.2017 was passed stating that there is no provision of appeal against not extending the service period in contractual appointment and termination of contract service under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contracrt Appointment) Rules, 2012, and the order passed by the Divisional Commission accepting the appeal is not binding upon. Hence, the aforesaid petitions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of termination is simplicitor but a dismissal for misconduct. The show cause notice dated 30.11.2010 was issued by the Collector and District Mission Director, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raigarh calling upon the petitioners to submit a response within a 5 period of seven days stating that in the event response was not found satisfactory, the services will be terminated. The show cause notice was issued on the basis of inquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioners and in the said inquiry, the petitioners have been found guilty and misconduct and the definite findings have been recorded to the effect that petitioners have committed misconduct and have committed financial irregularities. Neither the copy of inquiry report was submitted to the petitioners nor the show cause notice was issued on the basis of inquiry report conducted behind the back of the petitioners with the definite conclusion of misconduct. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were continuously working since 1996 and had worked very honestly. The petitioners have obviously being visited with civil consequences but they had been granted no opportunity of hearing and the order of termination of the service came to pass behind their back without following the procedure known to law and therefore, the impugned orders, which have been passed being contrary to the principles of nature justice, deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners are governed by the rules and regulations of Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission/97/2319/Bhopal dated 04.08.1997 and the Chhattisgarh Civil Seva (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2004 and the aforesaid rules have been framed by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and according to Rule 14 of the aforesaid statutory rule, the employees appointed 6 on contract basis will be governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The services of the petitioners also governed by the Civil Services Classification (Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 and according to the rules of 1966, no major penalty can be imposed on the delinquent employee without holding the inquiry as far as may be in the manner prescribed in rule and rule 15 of the Rules, 1966. Learned counsel also submits that the termination order has been passed without affording fair and real opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. No procedure which is required to be followed by imposing major penalty has been complied with and the order of termination is violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, which imposes in restriction on the excessive/arbitrary exercise of power or abuse of power on the competent appointing authority or the government in the matter of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank, termination. It guarantees protection to the employees in the manner that were any of such penalties proposed to be taken against the employee, it will be done after inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges levelled against him and he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. So, the impugned orders dated 08.05.2017 (Annexure P-1) and 14.07.2017 (Annexure P-3) are liable to be quashed/set aside. Reliance has been placed on the decision dated 16.12.2024 of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No.1446/2015 [Dilip Rangari Vs. State of C.G. & Another] and decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in 7 the matter of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Brijesh Kumar and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2282. 5. Learned counsel for State/Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6 strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Programme Officer on contractual basis for a period of one year under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA). Their appointment was purely on contract basis for a specific period. The contract period of the petitioners were extended from time-to-time upto year 2016 and after the last extension, the petitioners were not performing their duties upto the mark. Learned counsel further submits that before passing the impugned orders, ample opportunities were given to the petitioners to put their stand, as such, the same cannot be termed to be illegal and do not suffer from any illegality. Thus, the petitions being without any merit are liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis under the MGNREGA scheme. The contract period of the petitioners were extended from time to time upto 2016, however, after last extension, the petitioners were not performing their duties upto the mark. The petitioners were failed to achieve the target, therefore, show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and reply submitted by the petitioners were not found satisfactory, therefore, vide 8 impugned order Annexure P-1 in both the petitions the services of the petitioners were terminated. Against the termination order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Surguja and after hearing the parties the appellate authority passed the order on 04.07.2017, whereby the order of termination passed by the District Project Co-ordinator was quashed but according to the letter/instruction dated 07.07.2017 (Annexure R-3) issued by the Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development, Govt. of C.G., as well as letter dated 14.07.2017 of Commissioner, MGNREGA, Raipur, it is crystal clear that there is no provision of appeal against the termination of contractual employees or extension of service of a contract employee, therefore, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 04.07.2017 is without jurisdiction and the same cannot be given effect to and the same is not binding upon the respondent authorities. So the the petitions filed by the petitioners are devoid of merit. Learned counsel further submits that the services of the petitioners are purely on contractual basis and they are governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012, and as per Niyam, 2012, there is no provision of departmental appeal. Learned counsel also submits that the District Collector – District Programme Co-ordinator, District Surguja had issued advertisement dated 21.06.2017 for appointment of the Programme Officer and the recruitment on the said post is on process and in compliance of direction of this Court dated 9 31.08.2017, the appointment, if any, made would be subject to the final outcome of these petitions. So, both the aforesaid petitions being without any merit are liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner Mansay Sidar in WP(S) No.3454/2017 was appointed vide order dated 29/06/2006 (Annexure P-4) and Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta in WP(S) No.3400/2017 vide order dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure P-4) on the post of Programme Officer under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme on contract basis for a period of one year. Thereafter, looking to the overall performance, their tenure were extended from time to time upto the year 2016. It is also admitted position that before passing the order dated 08.05.2017, show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and by the impugned order dated 08.05.2017, services of the petitioners were terminated. For ready reference, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) in both the petitions are reproduced herein as under :- In W.P.(S) No.3400/2017 -:: आदेश ::- सूरजपु र दिदेनां क 8.5.2017 क्रमां क/1199/मांनांरगा /स्था ./ जिज.पु./2017 : मां ख्य क यपु लनां अधिक र, जिजल पुचा यत सूरजपु र क अश सूकय पुत्र क्रमां क / 12332/ मांनांरगा / जिज.पु./2017 सूरजपु र दिदेनां क 02.03.2016 क य लय जिजल पुचा यत क पुत्र कमां क 12897/ मांनांरगा / जिज.पु./2017 सूरजपु र दिदेनां क 20.03.2017 एवं पुत्र कमां क / 541/ मांनांरगा / जिज.पु./2016-17 सूरजपु र fnukad 14- 10 04-2017 (छ०गा०) क& मांनांरगा क क य' मां( ल पुरवं ही बरतनां एवं क य मां( अपुक्षि,त प्रगातित नांही ही&नां क सूब मां( क रण बत ओं सूचानां पुत्र ज र तिकय गाय था । जिजसूक श्री र जश्वर क मां र गा प्त क द्वा र सूत&षप्रदे एवं प्रमां क्षिणत जवं ब प्रस्त त नांही9 तिकय गाय । श्री र जश्वर क मां र गा प्त , क यक्रमां अधिक र, जनांपुदे पुचा यत सूरजपु र क छ०गा० सिसूतिवंल सूवं आचारण तिनांयमां 1965 एवं छ०गा० सूतिवंदे भत< तिनांयमां 2006 एवं छ०मां० सूतिवंदे भत< तिनांयमां 2012 क तिवंपुरत ही&नां सू श्री र जश्वर क मां र गा प्त , क यकमां अधिक र, जनांपुदे पुचा यत सूरजपु र क& उनांक सूवं वं>जि? आदेश कमां क/1759/ मांनांरगा /स्था ./ जिज.पु./2016 सूरजपु र दिदेनां क 23.05.2016 क क ति@क क . 04 एवं 07 मां( उल्लखिCत शतD जिजसूमां( "संविदा शर्तों ए छ०ग० शसंन, जिला पंचायर्तों ds विविनयमों विनदाश के प्रविर्तोंके ला केयही केरन पंर संविदा अधि# र्तोंत्केला संमोंप्र्तों के& संके ग" क आ र पुर श्री र जश्वर क मां र गा प्त , क यकमां अधिक र जनांपुदे पुचा यत सूरजपु र क आचारण प्रतितक ल ही&नां क क रण श्री र जश्वर क मां र गा प्त क& पुत्र कमां क/547/ मांनांरगा /जिज.पु./2017 सूरजपु र दिदेनां क 17.04.2017 क द्वा र सूवं सूमां प्तिप्त कर पुवं सूचानां दिदेय गाय था rn~mijkar आगा मां एक मां ही क वंतनां भ गात नां कर एतदेF द्वा र क यकमां अधिक र जनांपुदे पुचा यत सूरजपु र क पुदे पुर सूवं वं>जि? नांही9 तिकय ज कर तत्क ल सूवं सू पु>थाक तिकय ज त हीH। ;g आदेश तत्क ल प्रभ वंशल ही&गा । सूही/- dysDVj ,oa जिजल क यक्रमां सूमांन्वंयक (मांनांरगा ) जिजल सूरजपु र (छ०गा०) In W.P.(S.) No.3454/2017 -:: आदेश ::- सूरजपु र दिदेनां क 8.5.2017 क्रमां क/1197/मांनांरगा /स्था ./जिज.पु./2017 : dk;kZy; ftyk iapk;r lwjtiqj ¼N-x-½ ds i= dzekad@9823@eujsxk@ft-iapk-@2017] मां ख्य क यपु लनां अधिक र, जिजल पुचा यत सूरजपु र क अश सूकय पुत्र क्रमां क /12256/ मांनांरगा / जिज.पु./2017 सूरजपु र दिदेनां क 02.03.2016 पुत्र कमां क 12893/ मांनांरगा / जिज.पु./2017 सूरजपु र दिदेनां क 20.03.2017 एवं पुत्र कमां क / 540/ मांनांरगा / जिज.पु./2016-17 सूरजपु र fnukad 14- 11 04-2017 ds }kjk Jh ekulk; flnkj] dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh] tuin iapk;r izrkiiqj] ftyk & lwjtiqj (छ०गा०) क& मांनांरगा क क य' मां( ल पुरवं ही बरतनां एवं क य मां( अपुक्षि,त प्रगातित नांही ही&नां क सूब मां( क रण बत ओं सूचानां पुत्र ज र तिकय गाय था ] ftlds ifjikyu esa Jh ekulk; flnkj }kjk tokc izLrqr fd;k x;kA Jh ekulk; flnkj ds }kjk izLrqr tokc सूत&षप्रदे एवं प्रमां क्षिणत जवं ब प्रस्त त नांही9 तिकय गाय । श्री ekulk; flnkj क छ०गा० सिसूतिवंल सूवं आचारण तिनांयमां 1965 एवं छ०गा० सूतिवंदे भत< तिनांयमां 2006 एवं छ०मां० सूतिवंदे भत< तिनांयमां 2012 क तिवंपुरत ही&नां सू श्री ekulk; flnkj] क यकमां अधिक र, जनांपुदे पुचा यत izrkiiqj क& उनांक सूवं वं>जि? आदेश कमां क/1759/ मांनांरगा /स्था ./ जिज.पु./2016 सूरजपु र दिदेनां क 23.05.2016 क क ति@क क . 04 एवं 07 मां( उल्लखिCत शतD जिजसूमां( "संविदा शर्तों ए छ०ग० शसंन, जिला पंचायर्तों ds विविनयमों विनदाश के प्रविर्तोंके ला केयही केरन पंर संविदा अधि# र्तोंत्केला संमोंप्र्तों के& संके ग" क आ र पुर श्री ekulk; flnkj, क यकमां अधिक र जनांपुदे पुचा यत izrkiiqj क आचारण प्रतितक ल ही&नां क क रण श्री ekulk; flnkj क& पुत्र कमां क/546/ मांनांरगा /जिज.पु./2017 सूरजपु र दिदेनां क 17.04.2017 क द्वा र सूवं सूमां प्तिप्त कर पुवं सूचानां दिदेय गाय था rn~mijkar आगा मां एक मां ही क वंतनां भ गात नां कर एतदेF द्वा र क यकमां अधिक र जनांपुदे पुचा यत izrkiiqj क पुदे पुर सूवं वं>जि? नांही9 तिकय ज कर तत्क ल सूवं सू पु>थाक तिकय ज त हीH। ;g आदेश तत्क ल प्रभ वंशल ही&गा । सूही/- dysDVj ,oa जिजल क यक्रमां सूमांन्वंयक (मांनांरगा ) जिजल सूरजपु र (छ०गा०) 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of U.P. State (supra) observed in para 19, which reads thus :- “19. The services of the respondent have been determined solely on the ground of misconduct as alleged but without holding any regular inquiry or affording any opportunity of hearing to him. The termination order has been passed on the basis of some report which probably was not even supplied to the respondent. No show cause notice appears to 12 have been issued to the respondent. Therefore, the order of termination of his services, even if on contractual basis, has been passed on account of alleged misconduct without following the Principles of Natural Justice. The termination order is apparently stigmatic in nature which could not have been passed without following the Principles of natural Justice. 10. This Court in the matter of Dilip Rangai (supra) held in paras 10 to 13, which read thus :- “10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chandra Prakash Shahi (supra) in para 12 has observed as under :- “12. Now, it is well settled that the temporary government servants or probationers are as much entitled to the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as the permanent employees despite the fact that temporary government servants have no right to hold the post and their services are liable to be terminated at any time by giving them a month’s notice without assigning any reason either in terms of the contract of service or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of such service. The courts can, therefore, lift the veil of an innocuously worded order to look at the real face of the order and to find out whether it is an innocent as worded. (See: Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36) It is explained in this decision that inefficiency, negligence or misconduct may have been the factors for inducing the Government to terminate the services of a temporary employee under the terms of the contract or under the statutory Service Rules regulating the terms and conditions of service which, to put in differently, may have been the motive for terminating the services but the motive by itself does not make the order 13 punitive unless the order was “founded” on those factors or other disqualifications.” 11. In the matter of Kaushal Chandrakar (supra) this Court in para-20 held as under :- “20. The supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Vijaykumaran (supra) has clearly held that material which amounts to stigma need not be contained in the order of termination of the probationer, but might be contained in any document referred to in the termination order. It was further held that such reference may inevitably affect the future prospects of the incumbent and if so, the order must be construed as ex facie stigmatic order of termination…” 12. In the matter of Rahul Tripathi (supra) it is held by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that though the replies were not found satisfactory, but no inquiry was conducted and thereafter, issuance of order of termination attaches stigma though the contract period ended, consequently, order of termination was set-aside with all consequential benefits. 13. Sum and substance of the above discussion would be” (1) the petitioner was appointed for a period of one year; (ii) no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing impugned order; (iii) though the petitioner has been removed according to the Rule 11 (5) of the Rules, 2012 by following the conditions of appointment given in clause 5, but order of termination passed against the petitioner is stigmatic and cannot be regarded as a termination simpliciter; (iv) no enquiry was conducted by the employer before passing of the order impugned.” 14 11. In the light of aforesaid discussion and in the light of above dicta of Hon’ble Apex Court as also this Court, in the instant case also admittedly both the writ petitioners were working since 2009 and 2006 on contractual basis and their period of service have been extended from time to time upto 2016 and vide impugned order dated 08.05.2017 (Annexure P-1), their services were terminated citing negligence in duty and not making expected progress, which is a stigmatic and could affect their future prospect too. It is apparent that the impugned orders are not a termination but the order held to be stigmatic or punitive on this ground that it was alleged that the petitioners were terminated from their service for being negligent and adverse misconduct & the same have been passed without complying the principles of natural justice and without holding departmental enquiry, as such the impugned orders are not sustainable. 12. As a fallout, both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders of termination dated 08.05.2017 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 14.07.2017 (Annexure P-3) are hereby quashed/set-aside with all consequential benefits and petitioners be reinstated in service on their respective post with 50% back wages. The respondent authorities are directed to allow the petitioners to perform their duties attached to the post. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent authorities to initiate proper departmental enquiry against the petitioners, if so desires and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing/defence to the 15 petitioners, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and also adhering to the principles of natural justice. 13. The aforesaid writ petitions thus stands allowed to the above extent. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE