1 2025:CGHC:17021 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2515 of 2024 1 - Praveen Goyal S/o Shri Siyaram Goyal Aged About 40 Years R/o Amarkantak Road, Gaurela, Tahsil- Pendaroad, District- Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Mahatma Gandhi Mgnrega, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Council, Vikas Bhawan, Third Floor, Sector-19, North Block, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Cum District Programme Coordinator Mgnrega District- Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Project Director Zila Panchayat (Drda), District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive Officer/programme Officer Janpad Panchayat Pendra, District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Sub Divisional Office Rural Engineering Services, Sub Division- Penda, District- Gaurela-Penda-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.04.16 10:34:12 +0530 2 (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate For State : Mr. Risabh Bisen, PL For Resp. No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 11/04/2025 1. The Petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant on contractual basis on 04/03/2011 under Mahatma Gandhi Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short MGNREGA) for a period of one year and subsequently, his period was extended from time to time. 2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the order dated 31/03/2024 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the Collector has removed/terminated the petitioner from the post of Technical Assistant on the basis of inquiry report submitted by the District Level Inquiry Committee. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Avinash Mishra has lodged a complaint for certain irregularities and misconduct while discharging the duties of Technical Assistant against the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, an inquiry team was constituted by the Project Director on 11/04/2023 to conduct an inquiry on the said complaint. On 22/05/2023, the Committee started inquiry against the petitioner and a notice was issued to the petitioner to submit his explanation about the complaint. The petitioner sought time to submit his reply and requested the Inquiry Committee to supply necessary 3 documents to submit his reply. However, on 22/05/2023, the petitioner submitted interim reply to the said notice denying the complaint made by the Complainant. Further, on 26/06/2023, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply reiterating the earlier reply as well as denying the allegations. The Inquiry Team submitted the inquiry report on 14/07/2023 to respondent No.4 and subsequently, the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel submits that when a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, he submitted his reply to the Project Director, however, the Collector without considering the reply to the show cause notice, by a non-speaking and unreasoned order, removed the petitioner from the post of Technical Assistant only on the basis of report submitted by the Inquiry Committee. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner was appointed as contractual employee, but the order of termination is stigmatic order, which appears from the order itself and before termination or removing the petitioner from service, the respondent’s authority has to conduct a Departmental Inquiry and has to give sufficient opportunity of hearing and subsquently by observing principals of natural justice, they can take necessary action against the petitioner, whereas, in the present case, the respondents’ authority have not conducted any departmental inquiry and only on the basis of the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, the order impugned has been passed by the Collector. Even the Collector has not issued any notice to the petitioner and no explanation was sought from the petitioner before passing the order impugned, which is bad in law.. Learned counsel has relied the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this 4 Court passed in WPS No. 8212/2023 decided on 03/01/2023 and submits that the removal or termination of a contractual appointee, if any stigmatic order is to be passed, the Departmental Enquiry is must. 4. Learned counsel for the State as well as respondent No. 4 & 5 submits that the Committee which has been appointed by the Collector has afforded sufficient opportunity to the petitioner by giving a show cause notice and sought explanation. Hence, there is no need to conduct any Departmental Enquiry. The Inquiry Team has found the complaint against the petitioner as proved and therefore, the Collector has passed the order impugned as such there is no illegality and infirmity in the order impugned. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Inquiry Committee report and the order passed by the Collector (Annexure-P/1). 6. The Collector while passing the impugned order has fully relied upon the opinion of the Inquiry Committee and without affording any opportunity of hearing, the impugned order has been passed by a non-speaking and unreasoned order. Even the Collector did not explain about the opinion of the Enquiry Committee and did not consider the explanation given by the petitioner. Further it appears that neither any departmental inquiry was conducted not any notice was issued before passing the order of termination. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139 5 decided on 22.08.2024, in which the ratio laid down by the Apex 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 departmental enquiry after giving due opportunity of hearing to delinquent/ employee. 8. Taking into consideration of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court and for the reasons and discussions made here-in- above, the impugned order dated 31/03/2024 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all the benefits following from quashment of impugned order dated 31/03/2024. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to hold proper enquiry, if so advised. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul