1 2025:CGHC:54464 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4681 of 2023 1 - Smt. Renu Kushwaha W/o Mahendra Kushwaha Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Salka, Post Office Salka (Aghina), Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh .. Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, P.S. And P.O. Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Surajpur, P.S. And P.O. Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bhaiyathan, P.S. And P.O. Bhaiyathan, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Gram Panchayat Salka Through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Salka, P.S. And P.O. Bhaiyathan, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Programme Officer Chhattisgarh Mahatma Gandhi Rastriya Gramin Rojgar Guarntee Yojna (Manrega), Janpad Panchayat, Bhaiyathan, P.S. And P.O. Bhaiyathan, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Collector Surajpur P.S. And P.O. Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 07/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the notice dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 3 Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 proposing termination of her service on allegations of misuse of a JCB machine during Dabri construction under MANREGA. The petitioner contends that the allegations are false, baseless, and mala fide, as the beneficiary himself admitted using the JCB without her knowledge. The notice was issued without a charge-sheet or inquiry, violating natural justice and service rules, and is arbitrary, discriminatory, and politically motivated. Hence, this petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to quash impugned letter/notice dated 15.06.2023 issued by respondent no. 3 (Annex. P/1), and petitioner may kindly be permitted to continue her service on post of Employment Helper (Rojgar Sahayak) in Gram Panchayat, Salka, Janpad Panchayat Bhaiyathan, Jila Panchayat & District. Surajpur C.G. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire record of matter. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Employment Helper (Rojgar Sahayak) on 15.01.2018 by respondent No. 3 in Gram Panchayat Salka, Janpad Panchayat Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, on a contractual basis. Since her appointment, her service has been continuously renewed every year based on performance, and she has been discharging her duties diligently, which include monitoring MANREGA construction works, issuing job cards to workers, preparing muster rolls, and fulfilling villagers’ work requests. On 22.10.2022, the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat Salka passed administrative approval for the construction of a Dabri on the private land of beneficiary Ramprasad, without any fault on the part of the petitioner. However, Ramprasad, without informing the Gram 3 Panchayat or the petitioner, used a JCB machine at night to dig mud for the Dabri construction in violation of MANREGA rules. Upon becoming aware of this, a meeting of the Gram Sabha was convened on 15.04.2023, wherein it was unanimously decided to cancel the prior approval for the Dabri construction, and the petitioner, along with the Sarpanch, signed the resolution which was subsequently communicated to the Janpad Panchayat. The petitioner also issued a notice to Ramprasad informing him of the cancellation. Despite these facts, respondent No. 3 issued a show-cause notice dated 22.04.2023 alleging that the petitioner had allowed the use of the JCB machine in violation of MANREGA rules, and accused her of corruption and dereliction of duty. The petitioner promptly replied on 26.04.2023, clarifying that she had no involvement in the JCB work, that all works were conducted by MANREGA workers, and attaching documentary proof including the Gram Sabha resolution and the statement of beneficiary’s admitting he acted independently. Notwithstanding her detailed reply, respondent No. 2 issued a last warning-cum-show-cause notice on 26.04.2023 reiterating the same allegations, referencing complaints and prior notices, none of which were served on the petitioner to allow her proper response. The petitioner again clarified that she had no connection with the alleged irregularities and had consistently performed her duties in accordance with MANREGA rules. Despite her clarifications and continuous good service reports, including her most recent confidential report rating her as “very good,” respondent authorities issued the impugned termination notice dated 15.06.2023, proposing to terminate her service after one month. The petitioner thus challenges the legality of the notice and seeks its quashing. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned notice/letter issued by respondent No. 3 is arbitrary, discriminatory, and mala fide. While issuing the notice, the respondents failed to comply with Rule 14 4 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966, and the provisions of Rule 11(5) of the relevant 2012 Rules. Notably, the impugned notice references a letter dated 13.06.2023 (No. 1284/Sth./MANREGA/Ji. Pan./2023-24) issued by respondent No. 2, which was never served on the petitioner. As such, the petitioner remains unaware of the contents of the said letter and the basis for the proposed termination of her service. The respondents grossly erred by issuing the termination notice without serving a charge sheet, conducting any inquiry, or affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Any inquiry referenced in Annexure P/8 was conducted behind the back of petitioner, and no consent was obtained from the Programme Officer, MANREGA, or the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat of Salka prior to issuance of the notice. The impugned notice also fails to provide any cogent or detailed reason for the respondents’ alleged dissatisfaction with the reply of petitioner, merely stating in vague terms that they are “not satisfied” without addressing any specific grounds for termination. Further, apart from documents Annexure P/8, none of the other referenced documents were served on the petitioner to enable her to respond adequately. The petitioner has, however, submitted detailed and reasoned replies to the notices that were served. The respondents have also failed to appreciate the statement of beneficiary Ramprasad, who confirmed that he independently used a JCB machine to dig mud at night on his private land and did not inform the petitioner or the Gram Panchayat. This clearly demonstrates that the petitioner had no involvement in the alleged irregularity. The petitioner acted promptly by canceling the unauthorized construction of the Dabri during the Gram Sabha meeting, which further establishes her adherence to MANREGA rules. There have been no other allegations of misconduct against the petitioner in the execution of MANREGA works. The allegations of corruption are unsubstantiated, as no proof exists that the petitioner misappropriated funds, forgery was committed, 5 wages were withheld, or any undue benefit was obtained by her. In fact, the respondents themselves have continuously renewed her contractual service based on “good” and “very good” confidential reports, which directly contradict the allegations made in the impugned notice. The issuance of the impugned notice without an inquiry or proper opportunity to be heard violates the principles of natural justice and established legal precedents. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Champatlal Chimanlal Saha vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1854 and Radheshyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., reported in 1999 (2) SCC 21 have consistently held that termination without a proper inquiry or opportunity to respond to charges is arbitrary, punitive, and in violation of Articles 14 and 311 of the Constitution of India. In light of the foregoing, it is submitted that the impugned notice/letter is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide, and is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the impugned notice/letter issued to the petitioner is in accordance with law and was necessitated due to serious allegations of violation of MANREGA rules and irregularities in execution of works. It is submitted that the respondents, in exercise of their administrative powers, issued the notice based on complaints received from villagers and inquiry reports prepared by the Janpad Panchayat, Bhaiyathan. It is further submitted that the petitioner was repeatedly informed of the allegations and given opportunities to submit her explanations through show-cause notices dated 22.04.2023 and 26.04.2023, to which she responded. The respondents considered her replies and issued the termination notice in accordance with the service rules applicable to contractual employees. It is submitted that the role of petitioner in the alleged irregularity, although denied by her, was part of a broader administrative concern, and the respondents acted within their discretionary powers to ensure proper implementation of MANREGA 6 schemes. The termination notice cannot be construed as arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of principles of natural justice, as adequate opportunity for explanation was provided. The learned State counsel would therefore submit that the impugned notice/letter is justified, legal, and does not require interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner has been serving in the said post since 15.01.2018 and her service has been continuously renewed based on performance. The factual matrix indicates that the alleged irregularity concerning the use of a JCB machine on the private land of beneficiary Ramprasad occurred without the knowledge or involvement of the petitioner. It is further noted that upon becoming aware of the irregularity, the petitioner promptly convened a Gram Sabha meeting on 15.04.2023 and cancelled the prior approval for the Dabri construction, acting in accordance with rules. The impugned termination notice, while alleging corruption and misconduct on the part of the petitioner, fails to specify any concrete act committed by her. Apart from vague references to certain complaints and notices, the petitioner was not provided with the foundational documents relied upon by the respondents. Moreover, the petitioner had submitted detailed replies to the show-cause notices dated 22.04.2023 and 26.04.2023, clarifying her non-involvement and submitting documentary proof, including the Gram Sabha resolution and statement of beneficiary, which were not duly considered by the respondents. 7. The Court has carefully examined the submissions of both parties. It is apparent that the respondents, in issuing the impugned notice, have not followed the mandatory procedure of issuing a proper charge-sheet, conducting a fair inquiry, and providing the petitioner an opportunity of 7 hearing. Since the petitioner is a Rojgar Sahayak and is employed in connection with the affairs of the Panchayat, the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Service, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 were required to be followed while passing the order of removal. Under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, a prescribed procedure is mandated for imposition of any penalty. However, upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the procedure contemplated under the Rules of 1999 has not been adhered to. Moreover, even in the case of a contractual employee, where the order of termination contains stigmatic findings, adherence to the principles of natural justice is imperative. In the present case, such procedural safeguards have not been observed. Accordingly, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eyes of law 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Court finds that the impugned notice dated 15.06.2023 is liable to be quashed. However, this quashing shall not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate action in accordance with law. The respondents are directed to provide the petitioner a full and fair opportunity of hearing before passing any further orders affecting her service. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent of quashing the impugned notice dated 15.06.2023. The petitioner shall continue to serve in her post until a fresh decision is taken. The respondents are at liberty to take further action strictly in accordance with the law, after affording the petitioner an adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing. No order as to costs. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE