1 2025:CGHC:36697 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2109 of 2021  Fakir Barik S/o Shri Chinilal Barik Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Mahaloi, Post Mahaloi, Police Station And Tehsil Tamnar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Tamnar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5. The Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Mahaloi, Janpad Panchayat Tamnar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WITH WPS No. 2221 of 2021  Dolamani Gupta S/o Shri Hrishikesh Gupta Aged About 36 Years R/o C/o Shri Hrishikesh Gupta, Village Jobaro, Post Padigaon, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 2 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Tamnar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5. The Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Jobaro, Janpad Panchayat Tamnar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WITH WPS No. 2338 of 2021  Rajkumari Sahu D/o Shri Purushottam Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Salihanbhatha, Post Tamnar, Police Station And Tehsil Tamnar , Raigarh , District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Janpad Panchayat Tamnar, Raigarh , District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Tamnar, Raigarh , District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5. The Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Salihanbhatha, Janpad Panchayat Tamnar , Raigarh , District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate 3 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 28-07-2025 1) By way of these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders issued by the CEO Zila Panchayat, Raigarh and the CEO Janpad Panchayat, Tamnar, District–Raigarh, dated 16.02.2021 and 18.02.2021, respectively, whereby the services of the petitioners on the posts of Gram Rozgar Sahayak at their respective Gram Panchayats have been terminated without assigning any reasons. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed to the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak under the following Gram Panchayats of District–Raigarh:- Name Date of appointment Gram Panchayat Fakir Barik 30.05.2012 Gram Panchayat – Mahaloi Dolamani Gupta 20.02.2008 Gram Panchayat – Jobaro Rajkumari Sahu 20.02.2008 Gram Panchayat – Salihanbhatha He further submits that the petitioners participated in a strike called by their union from 30.12.2020 to 22.01.2021, and on that ground alone, their services have been terminated. He contends that the orders impugned passed by the respondent authorities are punitive and stigmatic in nature. He further contends that in the orders impugned, it is stated that the conduct of the petitioners was contrary to the State Policy, and they failed to comply with the instructions/directions issued by the State Government. He argues 4 that the reply filed by the respondents states that the services of the petitioners were not found satisfactory; thus, the orders passed by respondents No. 3 and 4 are punitive and stigmatic. He further argues that the respondent authorities ought to have conducted an inquiry before passing the orders impugned. He prays to set-aside the orders dated 16.02.2021 and 18.02.2021. 3) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing on behalf of respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that without prior approval of the department, the petitioners participated in the strike and failed to comply with the directions issued by the State Government; therefore, a decision was taken by the competent authority according to the provisions of Rules 11(4) & (5) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2012. They further submit that the termination orders are not punitive and stigmatic in nature and are termination simplicitor. They contend that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5) A perusal of the orders impugned shows that advance salary for a period of one month was not paid to the petitioners according to Rule 11(5) of the Rules, 2012. It further reflects that there are allegations against the petitioners to the effect that their conduct was contrary to the State Policy and they failed to comply with the direction(s)/order(s) issued by the State Government, but neither 5 those document(s)/policy(s) have been placed on record nor were supplied to the petitioners. Thus, it appears that the orders impugned are punitive and stigmatic in nature. 6) It is a well-settled principle of law that if the order of termination issued against a contractual employee is punitive and stigmatic in nature and the same has been issued without affording the opportunity of hearing, such an order would not be sustainable. Accordingly, the orders issued by the CEO, Zila Panchayat, Raigarh and the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Tamnar, District– Raigarh, dated 16.02.2021 and 18.02.2021, respectively, are hereby set aside. 7) Respondent authorities are directed to initiate a fresh inquiry, if so advised and take a decision after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 8) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), these petitions stand disposed of. 9) Decision with regard to the reinstatement and arrears of salary shall be taken by the authority concerned after the conclusion of the inquiry, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.30 14:13:43 +0530