1 (WPS No. 4561 of 2014) 2025:CGHC:7569 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4561 of 2014 1 - Suminbai W/o Santosh Mandavi Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Chiddo Janpad Panchayt Dongargarh Thana Dongargarh Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dongargarh District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner, Durg Division, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :-Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State :-Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 12.02.2025 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 22.05.2014 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division/respondent No.3 affirming order dated ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.02.18 10:50:28 +0530 2 (WPS No. 4561 of 2014) 20.09.2011 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Collector, Rajnandgaon/respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner’s dismissal from the post of Rojgar Sahayak vide order dated 05.06.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dongargarh, Rajnandgaon/respondent No.2 has been upheld. 2. Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only three days’ time was given to the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice dated 21.05.2009 and, thereafter, during the enquiry, though the charge-sheet was served to the petitioner but she was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, and only on the instructions given by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dongargarh, the petitioner’s services were dismissed vide order dated 05.06.2009, which has been upheld by the Collector, Rajnandgaon and the Commissioner, Durg Division vide orders dated 20.09.2011 & 22.05.2014 respectively, which is ex facie stigmatic and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2 would support the impugned orders. 3 (WPS No. 4561 of 2014) 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Rojgar Sahayak on 08.09.2006. Thereafter, on allegation of forged muster roll and embezzlement, show cause notice was issued against the petitioner on 21.05.2009 (Annexure R-2/4) and an enquiry was conducted against her, however, the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the same. During the enquiry, the statements of the witnesses were recorded ex parte and the ex parte enquiry report was accepted by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, pursuant to which, the petitioner’s services from the post of Rojgar Sahayak were terminated vide order dated 05.06.2009 (Annexure P/1) and the same has been upheld by the Collector, Rajnandgaon and the Commissioner, Durg Division. Since the enquiry conducted was ex parte, neither the specific charges were served to the petitioner nor she was allowed to participate in the enquiry and a copy of the enquiry report was also not served to her and, therefore, she could not defend herself properly. 4 (WPS No. 4561 of 2014) 6. As such, impugned order dated 22.05.2014, being ex facie stigmatic in nature is hereby quashed and, consequently, impugned orders dated 20.09.2011 & 05.06.2009 are also hereby set aside. However, since the contract period of the petitioner has already come to an end, the petitioner is at liberty to make an application before the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dongargarh, to consider her case, if any future vacancy arises, without being prejudiced by the impugned order as it was passed without affording appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and has already been set aside. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!