1 2025:CGHC:14258 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5764 of 2019 1 - Sukrita Dinkar W/o Bholashankar Purena Aged About 23 Years R/o Rajpur, Police Chwoki, Karhibazar, Police Station Balodabazar, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. Mo. 9200399947, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur, Police Station Kewli, Tahsil, Civill And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Cum District Program Coordinator Mahatam Gandhi, Rashtriy Gramin Rojgar Guarntee Yojna, Balodabazar - Bhatapara, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Balodabazar - Bhatapara, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bhatapara District Balodabazar - Bhathapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. adv. For Respondents No. 3 and 4 : Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Adv. Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.04.03 12:07:18 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 25/03/2025 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner challenging order (Annexure P-1) dated 26-6-2019 passed by the respondent No. 4/Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara, District Balodabajar-Bhatapara, whereby employment of the petitioner from the post of Rojgar Sahayak has been terminated. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that, petitioner was appointed vide order (Annexure P-3) dated 14-9-2018 on the post of Rojgar Sahayak of Gram Panchayat, Rajpur on contractual basis for a period of 3 years from the date of her appointment. On a complaint made against her for filling up forged muster roll in respect of digging Puchhan pond, inquiry was conducted and inquiry report (Annexure P-4/R-1) was submitted against the petitioner and based on that report, she was terminated from service vide impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 26-6-2019 passed by respondent No. 4, which has been challenged by the petitioner in instant petition, further seeking her reinstatement on the post of Rojgar Sahayak. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that contractual appointment of petitioner was made under the CG Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 (henceforth, referred to as ‘Rule, 2012’). Though, as per Rule 15(1) of the Rules 2012, CG Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 is applicable on the petitioner, but only on the basis of false complaint made 3 against her, inquiry was conducted without providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Even, she was not granted opportunity to cross- examine witnesses. Ex-parte inquiry was conducted against her, thus, principles of natural justice have not been complied with. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the impugned order may be set aside and relief sought for may be granted to her. 4. The respondents No. 3 and 4, who are main contesting party in instant petition, have filed their reply stating inter alia that, petitioner was entrusted work of deepening of pond, to which, she was duty bound to prepare muster roll of labourers engaged in the said work, but she prepared false muster roll, therefore, complaint was made against her. In pursuance of that complaint, inquiry was conducted against her by a team of 3 officials, who recorded statements of complainant and labourers engaged in said work and after inquiry, it was found that the petitioner has prepared false muster roll entering names of those persons, who were not actually engaged in said work. Thus, she has committed financial irregularities. Learned counsel further submits that after obtaining inquiry report, notice (Annexure P-5) dated 10-6-2019 was served to the petitioner, which was replied by her vide Annexure P-6 dated 13-6-2019, but the reasons assigned in the reply were not found satisfactory, therefore, her employment has been terminated vide the impugned order (Annexure P-1). Opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner, even her statement was recorded. Thus, due opportunity has been provided to her. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 4 material available on record. 6. It is trite law that, if any order is passed against an employee having civil consequences and stigmatic, then concerned employee ought to have been given due opportunity of hearing. 7. In the case of O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and another [(1987) 4 SCC 328] Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized the principle that any order which would cause adverse civil consequences, can only be passed upon observance of the rules of Natural Justice. There is, therefore, insistence upon requirement of a “fair hearing”. 8. In S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and others [(1980) 4 SCC 379], the Supreme Court has held that the old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away and now even an administrative order, if involves civil consequences, must comply with the rules of natural justice and further held that everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence. 9. In instant case, ground of termination of petitioner is that, she prepared false muster roll in the name of those persons, who were not engaged in alleged work of digging pond, meaning thereby, allegation of financial irregularities have been levelled against her, in such situation, petitioner ought to have been granted due opportunity of hearing by providing documents to her in respect of alleged allegation and statement of the person, who made complaint against her and also of those witnesses, who stated against the petitioner by providing opportunity of their cross- examination, but no such opportunity has been provided to her and only by 5 conducting ex-parte inquiry, impugned order has been passed against her, which, in view of above discussion and law rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court, is bad in law. 10. In view of above discussion, the instant petition is allowed to the extent that Annexure P-1 dated 26-6-2019 passed by respondent No. 4 is set aside. However, respondents No. 3 and 4 are at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law and further take decision for continuation of service of petitioner. 11. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. SD/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak