1 2025:CGHC:1440 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 532 of 2018 • Abhishek Sinha S/o Shri N K Sinha Aged About 37 Years Posted As Assistant Grade -III, M N R E G A Janpad Panchayat Khadgawan District Baikunthpur Koriya R/o B - 6 / 154 New Godripara Kurasiya Collory Chirimiri, Tahsil Khadgawan District Baikunthpur Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner 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 2. The Collector, Baikunthpur District Baikunthpur Koriya, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Khadgawan, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General For Respondents No. 3 and 4 : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/01/2025 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 respondent CEO Zila Panchayat Baikunthpur-Koriya. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant the cost of petition to the petitioner. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 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 and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on the basis of a force 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 as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and no proper inquiry was conducted, the order (Annexure- P/1) is void ab intio and is liable to be quashed. It is also contended that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III on contractual basis under respondents No. 3 and 4 vide order dated 15.02.2011. 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 the inquiry was not conducted, the witnesses were not examined, documents were not provided and a final decision was taken. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Aniket Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4 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 month’s salary in advance was also given to the petitioner and thereafter his 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. 3 4. Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 would support the contentions made by Mr. Aniket Verma. 5. The order impugned dated 16.10.2017 would show that the order of termination is stigmatic in nature and there are allegations of financial irregularities. An inquiry was conducted wherein it was found that the petitioner committed financial irregularities to the tune of Rs.1,35,066/-, but no inquiry was conducted for termination of the services of the petitioner pursuant to financial irregularities. Admittedly, the order impugned is stigmatic, no opportunity of hearing was afforded, no inquiry was conducted to prove the allegations, therefore, the order dated 16.10.2017 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and same is hereby quashed. 6. The matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to conduct a fresh inquiry and take an appropriate decision after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti