1 / 5 2025:CGHC:13328 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5487 of 2024 1 - Suraj Dev Kumar Kushwaha S/o Shri Asharfi Kushwaha Aged About 45 Years G.I.S. Expert, Chhattisgarh State Watershed Management Agency (Cgswma), Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Campus Labhandi Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh The Chief Secretary Cum Chairman, State Watershed Management Agency (Cgswma), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Districr Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Additional Chief Secretary Agriculture Cum Commissioner Agriculture Production Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Dy. Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio-Technology, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh State Watershed Management Agency, I.G.K.V. Campus, Labhandi Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 / 5 5 - The Joint Chief Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh State Watershed Management Agency, I.G.K.V. Campus, Labhandi Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - The General Manager National Informatics Centre Services Incorporated (NICSI) Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Jitendra Nakka Training Expert Chhattisgarh State Watershed Management Agency I.G.K.V. Campus, Labhandi Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. A. S. Rajput, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 20/03/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 14/08/2024 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent No.3/ Dy. Secretary, Department of Agriculture Development, Farmer Welfare and Bio-Technology directing the respondent No.4/ Chief Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh State Watershed Management Agency, Raipur to remove the present petitioner from the work assigned to him as a GIS Expert stating that the petitioner has involved in several irregularities while discharging his duties and his work is not found satisfactory. The petitioner is further questioning the order dated 20/08/2024 passed by respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner has been removed from the work 3 / 5 assigned to him. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is a contractual appointee of the said Agency but still the State has passed the order of removal of the petitioner from the work assigned to him by a stigmatic order and once a stigmatic order has been passed directing removal of the petitioner, the respondents have to follow the principles of natural justice, however, in the present case, without giving any show cause notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to explain the alleged irregularities, the impugned order has been passed by the State to remove the present petitioner. In support of his contention, he referred the judgment dated 22/08/2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139 and the judgment dated 22/08/2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.4969/2015 in the matter of Digambar Chandrakar vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the counsel for respondent No.7 would submit that the petitioner is not an employee of State Government whereas he is an employee of Chhattisgarh State Watershed Management Agency, Raipur and there is no need to issue any show cause notice and to observe the principles of natural justice before removing the petitioner from the work assigned to him. Learned counsel further submits that the State has only recommended the CEO to remove the 4 / 5 petitioner from the work assigned to him as it is not the employer of the petitioner hence there is no need to provide any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents as well as the pleadings made by the petitioner. 5. From perusal of the impugned order/ communication dated 14/08/2024, it appears that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No.3 directing the respondent No.4 to remove the petitioner from the work assigned to him alleging that the petitioner has involved in several irregularities and the work done by him was not found satisfactory. 6. It also appears from the reply submitted by the State that before issuance of the order, which is apparent as stigmatic order, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner even no show cause notice has been issued to him. 7. In the matter of Swati Priyadarshini (supra), the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme 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. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Digambar Chandrakar (supra) also observed 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. 5 / 5 9. In view of the above submissions made by both the parties and having considered the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the impugned order dated 14/08/2024 and subsequent order dated 20/08/2024 (Annexure P/5) passed by the CEO, Chhattisgarh State Watershed Management Agency, Raipur are hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the State to pass a fresh order in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and observing principles of natural justice. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar