1 WPS No. 4917 of 2020 2025:CGHC:21191 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4917 of 2020 1 - Gajanand Sahu S/o Late Moti Ram Sahu, Aged About 46 Years R/o Siddhi Vinayak Colony, Kailash Pati Nagar, Rudri Road, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secreatry, Department Of Women And Child Development, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Women And Child Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Programme Officer, Department Of Women And Child Development, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 5 - R.S. Thakur, Deputy Collector, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 WPS No. 4917 of 2020 6 - Ms Chandraprabha Sudhakar, R/o Village Raghonawagaon, Post Khertha Bazar, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh. Presently District Congress President, Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 08.05.2025 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 22.09.2020 (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No.4, whereby Respondent No.4 had declined to extend the contractual period of petitioner on the ground that he was found guilty for financial irregularity. 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, is that the petitioner was appointed as District Child Protection Officer vide order dated 30.03.2015 (Annexure P/2) by Respondent No.4 for a period of two years. Subsequently, his contractual appointment was extended from time to time. Vide order dated 24.06.2019, his appointment was again extended for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 22.09.2020 (Annexure P/1), Respondent No.4 has declined to extend petitioner's 3 WPS No. 4917 of 2020 contractual appointment on the ground that he was found guilty in enquiry conducted against him for financial irregularity, as he has misused the fund allotted to him to the tune of Rs.3,40,000/- (in words ‘Three Lakh Fourty Thousand’ Rupees), which has been challenged by the petitioner in instant petition seeking the following relief(s):- i That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 22/9/2020 (Annexure-P/1) bearing No. 304/Ma.Ba.Vi./ ICPS/ Sa Niyu./2020-21 passed by the respondent No.4. ii That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to extend the services of the petitioner as per the proceedings Annexure P/17 and permit him to render his services without any interruption. iii That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to extend the services of the petitioner as per the proceedings Annexure P/17 and permit him to render his services without any interruption. iv Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. v Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amount of Rs.3,40,000/- has been allotted to the petitioner for training in 85 clusters and he has imparted training to the employees of ICPS. In this regard amount Rs.1,19,958/- was incurred for expenditure in said training. But, because of false complaint made against the petitioner, the amount of Rs.2,20,042/- along with interest of 4 WPS No. 4917 of 2020 Rs.2,604/- has been deposited by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that allegation made against the petitioner was totally false and in this regard, a show-cause notice dated 11.09.2018 (Annexure P/3) was issued against the petitioner, to which petitioner has filed his written reply vide Annexure P/4 dated 20.09.2018, despite that, his contractual period was not extended by the Respondent No.4 only on the basis of false allegation. He would further submit that the enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner without providing due opportunity of hearing to him and the said enquiry report is annexed with Annexure P/15. Thus, principle of natural justice has not been followed, even none of the employees was examined from where the receipts were made. Only on the basis of baseless and vague enquiry report, extension of his contractual appointment has been declined alleging financial irregularity against him, therefore, she prays that this petition may be allowed and impugned order dated 22.09.2020 (Annexure P/1) may be set aside. 4. State has filed its reply. Learned State counsel referring to its reply would submit that on account of complaint received against the petitioner, a show-cause notice dated 11.09.2018 (Annexure P/3) was issued to him and the same was replied by the petitioner vide Annexure P/4 dated 20.09.2018. After considering the reply of the petitioner (Annexure P/4), enquiry report annexed with 5 WPS No. 4917 of 2020 Annexure P/15 was submitted by Deputy Collector/Enquiry Officer, Balod holding therein that petitioner was found guilty for financial irregularity. Hence, vide impugned order dated 22.09.2020 (Annexure P/1) Respondent No.4 has declined to extend contractual period of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State further submits that due opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and thereafter, the impugned order was passed. Therefore, he prays that this petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate appearing for Respondent No.6, submits that Respondent No.6 is a formal party, therefore, he has not filed his reply. He further submits that he extends his support to the contentions made by learned State counsel. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully. 7. 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. 8. In the case of O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and Another 1 Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized the principle that any order which would cause adverse civil consequences, can only be 1 (1987) 4 SCC 328 6 WPS No. 4917 of 2020 passed upon observance of the rules of Natural Justice. There is, therefore, insistence upon requirement of a "fair hearing". 9. In S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and Others 2 , Hon’ble 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. 10. In instant case, the ground of declining extension of period for contractual appointment of petitioner is that in the enquiry report he was found guilty for financial irregularity. Though, he has been served a show-cause notice vide Annexure P/3 dated 11.09.2018 by Respondent No.2 and the same was replied by petitioner vide Annexure P/4 dated 20.09.2018. The Deputy Collector/Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report annexed with Annexure P/15 stating inter alia that the petitioner has committed financial irregularity. On perusal of the aforesaid enquiry report shows that for the said training, amount of Rs.3,40,000/- has been allotted to the petitioner out of which, he expended Rs.1,19,958/-, thereafter, when the complaint was made against him, he deposited the remaining amount of Rs.2,20,042/- along with interest of Rs.2,604/- (Total Rs.2,22,646/-) in the bank account of Child 2 (1980) 4 SCC 379 7 WPS No. 4917 of 2020 Protection Committee Balod. As per impugned enquiry report, to substantiate the expenditure, the petitioner had submitted false/fabricated receipts i.e. of hotels, grocery shops, hiring vehicles, etc.. But, the said enquiry report does not show that authors of the said receipts have ever been enquired and statements was recorded by the enquiry officers. On one hand, when complaint was made against the petitioner, the District Education Officer (DEO) Balod submitted an enquiry report dated 08.08.2019 (Annexure P/7) to the Collector, stating therein, that the allegation of financial irregularity against the petitioner was false, but on the other hand, enquiry report dated 05.09.2020 annexed with Annexure P/15, wherein, it is found that the petitioner was held guilty for financial irregularity. Thus, there are two contradictory enquiry reports submitted by the respondent authorities. In such situation, particularly considering the allegation for financial irregularity against the petitioner, which bear civil consequences, petitioner ought to have been provided due opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice, but such opportunity has not been provided to him, while making enquiry report by Deputy Collector/Enquiry Officer, on the basis of which, he has been held guilty for financial irregularity and his contractual period has been declined to be extended. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Apex Court, the impugned order dated 8 WPS No. 4917 of 2020 22.09.2020 (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No.4 against the petitioner, is found to be bad in law. 11. Consequently, instant petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above that Annexure P/1 dated 22.09.2020 issued by Respondent No.4 is set aside. However, Respondents No.3 & 4 are at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law and take further decision for continuation of service of petitioner. 12. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA