1 2025:CGHC:21767 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3142 of 2025 1 - Shri Ajay Kumar Bareth S/o Shri Ghasiya Ram Bareth Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Harethi, Tehsil - Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Social Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector District- Sakti (C.G.) 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Shivali Banshal, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. AG (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 09/05/2025 1. On the last date of hearing, notice was issued to respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted a covering memo dated 08/05/2025 and submits that Hamdast notice has been served upon the respondent No.4. But today no one appears on his behalf. RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.05.13 11:44:39 +0530 2 2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the order dated 23/12/2024 (Annexure-P/1) whereby respondent No.4 has removed the petitioner from the post of Employment Assistant (Rojgar Sahayak), on the basis of complaint made by one Jai Kumar Khairwar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Jai Kumar Khairwar. has lodged a complaint against the petitioner for embezzlement while the petitioner was discharging his assigned duties. Subsequently, on 18/11/2024, the inquiry report was submitted and the petitioner was issued a show cause notice, which was replied by him, however, without conducting and Departmental Inquiry, the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel would further submit that 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 subsequently 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 inquiry report, the order impugned has been passed by the Collector. Even the respondent No.4 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 Court passed in WPS No. 8212/2023 decided on 03/01/2023 and submits that the removal or 3 termination of a contractual appointee, if any stigmatic order is to be passed, the Departmental Enquiry is must. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Committee which has been appointed by the respondent 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 respondent No.4 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 respondent No.4 (Annexure-P/1). 6. The respondent No.4 while passing the impugned order has fully relied upon the opinion of the Inquiry Committee and without conducting any Departmental inquiry, they have passed the impugned order which is a stigmatic one. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139 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. 4 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 23/12/2024 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all the benefits following from quashment of impugned order dated 23/12/2024. 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 Sourabh/ rahul