1 2025:CGHC:54771-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 812 of 2025 Virendra Kumar Bandey S/o Bhagchand Bandey Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Baikoni, Tehsil Simga, Baikoni, Balodabazar, Bansankara,district Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. (Posted As Rajgar Sahayak, In Gram Panchayat- Baikoni, Tehsil Simga, Baikon Balodabazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary- Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur, P.S. Kewli, Tahsil Civil And Revenue District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Collector Cum District Program Coordinator, Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriy Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Yojna, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayatt Balodabazar Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Simga, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Deputy Director Krishi Development And Farmer Welfare And Technology Department, Distrit Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Add. A.G. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.12 10:44:54 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents / State. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 21.08.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1595/2021 (Virendra Kumar Bandey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh an Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein observing that an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Land Conservation Officer and the writ petitioner did not challenge the same and furthermore, the Enquiry Officer has recorded categorical findings against the writ petitioner and the allegations have been found to be established. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Baikoni, Tehsil Simga, District Balodabazar on 11.05.2007, in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Contract Appointment Rules, 2012, and his contract was renewed every year upon satisfactory completion of service. Under the Manrega Scheme, works for digging a tank at Village 3 Baikoni were sanctioned and carried out under the supervision of the Sarpanch, Secretary, and the petitioner. Subsequently, certain complaints were made by local residents alleging that the petitioner had prepared a fake muster roll and engaged his family members in the said work. An enquiry report was prepared against the petitioner, but its copy was never supplied to him. Based on the prima facie findings of the said report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which he duly submitted his reply, explaining that the construction materials were retained by the President of the Jal Grahan Samiti and that this was duly informed to higher authorities. He also clarified that around 70-80 labourers were engaged in the work, including some of his family members, who were employed as ordinary labourers, and that no fake muster roll was prepared. However, without appreciating his explanation or providing an opportunity to rebut the enquiry findings, the respondent authorities terminated his services without conducting any elaborate enquiry. The order of termination was challenged before the learned Single Judge, who upheld the same and dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner vide order dated 21.08.2025, leading to the filing of the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent State authorities, in matters concerning contractual appointments made under the Chhattisgarh Contract Appointment Rules, 2012, are under a legal obligation to conduct a detailed enquiry if the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice are specifically 4 denied and contested by the employee. In the present case, despite the appellant having duly submitted his written explanation to the show cause notice, no further enquiry was conducted by the authorities before passing the impugned order of termination. It is further submitted that this Hon’ble Court, in the case of Mansay Sidar v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 3400/2017, decided on 09.05.2025), has categorically held that even in cases of contractual appointments governed by the said Rules, the authorities are bound to conduct a further enquiry prior to issuing an order of termination. Moreover, the copy of the enquiry report was never furnished to the petitioner, and thus, the impugned order of termination has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 7. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the show-cause notice issued to the writ petitioner alleged that while discharging his 5 duties as Rojgar Sahayak, he had engaged six of his family members by entering their names in the muster roll and making payments to the tune of Rs.30,780/-. It was further alleged that he had entered the names of seven persons associated with the President of the Watershed Committee in the muster roll and made payments amounting to Rs.35,340/-. Another allegation levelled against the writ petitioner was that he had forged demand letters. An enquiry in this regard was conducted by the Assistant Land Conservation Officer, who recorded categorical findings holding the allegations to be proved. The impugned order notes that the writ petitioner did not challenge the procedural aspect of the enquiry, and upon considering the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the learned Single Judge found no reason to interfere with the decision of the authorities and accordingly dismissed the petition preferred by the writ petitioner. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 6 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet