1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6048 of 2017 1 - Vineeta Sahu S/o Hariom Prasad Sahu, Aged About 24 Years Presently Posted And Working As Assistant Programer, M N R E G A , Janpad Panchayat Khadgawan, District Baikunthpur Koriya, R/o Ward No 16, Near Hari Mandir, Bhaisa Dafai, Post Office Haldibadi, Chirimiri, District Baikunthpur Koriya Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Police Station And Post Office Rakhi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Baikunthpur District Baikunthpur Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Baikunthpur, District Baikunthpur Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Khadgawan, District Baikunthpur Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate along with Ms. Shivani Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer For other respondents : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order Dated 16.10.2017 (Annexure-P/1) issued by CEO Zila Panchayat Baikunthpur-Koriya; 10.2 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant the cost of petition to the petitioner; 2 10.3 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner in the facts & circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on the basis of a forged inquiry which was conducted by respondents No. 3 and 4 with regard to financial irregularities, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 16.10.2017. He would submit that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and no proper inquiry was conducted, therefore, the order (Annexure-P/1) is void ab initio and may be quashed. It is also contended that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Programmer on contractual basis under respondents No. 3 and 4 vide order dated 02.11.2015. He would contend that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.08.2017 making certain allegations with regard to financial irregularities. He would further submit that though a show cause notice was issued, but no inquiry was conducted; the witnesses were not were not examined’ documents were not provided and final decision was taken. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pradip Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2012(13) SCC 182, Marwari Balika Vidyalaya Vs. Asha Srivastava, reported in 2020 (14) SCC 449, Dr. Vijayakumaram Vs. Central University Kerala, reported in 2020 (12) SCC 426 and Swati Priyadarshini Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2024 AIR Supreme Court 4339. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shukla. He would submit that the inquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with law and sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. He would further submit that one 3 month's salary in advance was also given to the petitioner and thereafter her services were terminated thus, the decision taken by respondents No. 3 and 4 was in consonance with Rule 11(5) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Samvida Niyukti) Rules, 2012. 4. The order of termination of services dated 16.10.2017 would show that it is stigmatic in nature and there are allegations of financial irregularities and derelictions in duty. An inquiry was conducted wherein it was found that on account of negligence of the petitioner in giving information, the financial irregularities were committed to the tune of Rs.1,08,000/- but no inquiry was conducted for termination of the services of the petitioner pursuant to the alleged charge of financial irregularities. Admittedly, the order impugned is stigmatic and punitive in nature, no opportunity of hearing was afforded, no inquiry was conducted to prove the allegations, therefore, the order dated 16.10.2017(Annexure P/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and same is hereby quashed and the petitioner be reinstated in service with consequential benefits. 5. The matter is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the authority concerned to conduct a fresh inquiry and take an appropriate decision after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if so, desired. sd/ (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha