2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 2834 of 2018 Ramakant Goyal S/o. Chhatram Goyal, Aged About 32 Years R/o. Village Murlikanji, Gram Panchayat Pauna, Police Station Mulmula, Janpad Panchayat Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh; 2 - Collector, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh; 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh; 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh). Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Govind Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / State : Shri Vivek Siddharth Ojha, P.L. For Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 10/03/2026 1. Heard. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 28/02/2018 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 3 by which services of the petitioner who was working as Rojgaar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat – Pauna, Janpad Panchayat – Akaltara were terminated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challenge to the order impugned is only on the ground that before passing it no show-cause notice ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.03.17 13:03:40 +0530 -2- was issued and this no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner though the order impugned is stigmatic in nature. 4. Return on behalf of respondents have been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that the petitioner was appointed as ‘Rojgaar Sahayak’ on contract basis in the year 2009 and since his work was not satisfactory, time and again show-cause notices were given to him for improving his work right from the year 2011 which are filed as Annexure R-11 and R-12. He further submits that in the year 2016 also show- cause notice was given to improve his work otherwise proceedings for termination from the service of the petitioner would be initiated that documents was filed as Annexure R-1/3. He further submits that on 26.12.2017 also the petitioner was issued show-cause notice that his work was not satisfactory, and sought reply. As his reply was not found satisfactory, thus vide communication dated 09.02.2018 (Annexure R-1/5), the recommendation was made to the respondent No. 3 for termination of the services of the petitioner. He further submit that the service of this notices has not been disputed by the petitioner in the rejoinder, rather he has suppressed the fact and has not come to this Court with clean hands. He submits that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 adopt the arguments of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Submissions made on behalf of Shri Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner submits is that no opportunity of hearing was granted. Perusal of the return filed by the respondent No.3 and the document to that appended indicate that from the year 2011 and 2017, many show cause notices were given to the petitioner to improve his work. From Annexure R-1/4 it is also evident that show-cause notice was given to him Annexure R-1/5 communicatiuon i.e. -3- dated 09.02.2018 also indicates that after consideration of the reply, the recommendation was made for his termination of service. 9. The petitioenr has not disputed that such communication was not received by him. Rather it appears that he has deliberiately supressed this material fact that before issuing of order of termination he has been served with show- notice. Thus it is apparent that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey, reported in 2025 INSC 348 has cautioned that the party invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of india and disclose all correct and matrial facts in the writ petition. Relevant portion of the said decision reads as under :- “9.It is no more res integra that the Doctrine of "Clean hands and non-suppression of material facts" is applicable with full force to every proceedings before any judicial forum. The party invoking extraordinary Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and disclose all correct and material facts in his Writ Petition. If it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petition has been guilty of suppression of material and relevant facts or has not come with clean hands, such conduct must be seriously viewed by the courts as the abuse of process of law and the petition must be dismissed on that ground alone without entering into the merits of the matter.” 11. In view of above, this Court does not find any force in the submission made by Shri Dewangan, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12.All the pending applications are disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- S -Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish