1 2025:CGHC:60208 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(S) No.2364 of 2020 Angesh Kumar Sinha S/o Ishu Ram Sinha Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Chhuiya, Thana Fingeshwar, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 4 - Program Officer MNREGA Project, Janpad Panchayat, Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.12.12 12:54:37 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Shri Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.1 : Ms. Mandvi Bharadwaj, PL. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 11.12.2025 1. This Petition has been filed assailing the termination order dated 27.02.2020 (Annexure P-1) whereby, without conducting proper enquiry, a stigmatic order has been passed and the services of the Petitioner were terminated from the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak employed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA). 2. For adjudicating the present case, the relevant facts are that the Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Chhuiya, Janpad Panchayat, Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband vide order dated 13.02.2014 (Annexure P-2) for a period of one year and thereafter, his services were extended from time to time. By the impugned order, a stigmatic finding has been recorded to the effect that the Petitioner was lackadaisical and had exhibited gross negligence in the discharge of his duties and on the said allegations of misconduct, his services were terminated. However, before passing the said 3 order, no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner and therefore, the impugned order stands vitiated being in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence this Petition. 3. Shri Yadav, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that before passing any stigmatic order of termination, a proper enquiry is mandatory and this legal position has been elucidated in Swati Priyadarshani v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139 wherein, it has been held that the termination of service of the employee for alleged negligence, misconduct or other disqualification would harm their future career, therefore, proper enquiry before termination is mandatory, however, no such procedure has been followed in the instant case. He further submits that the said principle has been reiterated by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Praveen Goyal vs. State of CG and Ors ; 2025: CGHC:17021 [WPS No.2515/2024] and also in the case of Rakesh Roshan Soj vs. State of CG and Ors; 2025:CGHC:42212 [WPS No.9269/2023] and this Court also, while dealing with a similar matter, relied on the aforesaid principle in the matter of Purnendra Kumar Netam vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.; W.P.(S) No.5012/2020. He lastly submits that the impugned order is not sustainable, which deserves to be set- 4 aside/quashed and prays that the Petition may be allowed and the Petitioner may be granted all consequential benefits along with back wages. 4. Contrastingly, learned Counsel for the Respondents support the impugned order of termination and submit that sufficient opportunity has already been granted to the Petitioner by issuing him various show-cause notices and explanation has also been sought for. It is further submitted that the order of termination has been passed strictly in terms of the employment and the applicable scheme and as such, no regular Departmental Enquiry is needed. They placed reliance on the connected matters led by Manish Kumar Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, W.P. No. 21686/2023 & connected Petitions, decided on 19.09.2025, Dev Singh Paikra & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Chh 3219 as well as on Mangilal Balal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Raj 3849. They lastly submit that the order impugned is just and proper and the same does not warrant any interference. 5. Replying to the above, Shri Yadav, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that a specific procedure has been stipulated regarding removal of Gram Rojgar Sahayak vide circular dated 5 30.07.2014 of MGNREGA Council that a fair opportunity ought to be given to the delinquent employee and enquiry ought to be conducted by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat and the said authority, after completion of the said enquiry, forward the same to the CEO, District Panchayat who in turn, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the employee and after obtaining approval of the Collector, shall take the further course of action for removal of an employee from the service of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and it has been further clarified vide circular dated 28.09.2018. He further submits that no enquiry report was ever served upon the Petitioner and various show-cause notices were issued to him, which do not disclose any clear allegations or specific misconduct. He lastly submits that the case laws relied upon by learned Counsel for the Respondents are distinguishable on facts and would not be applicable in the present case. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the documents annexed with the Petition with utmost circumspection. 7. Undisputedly, the order of termination casts a stigma on the delinquent employee and adversely affects his future career. In the present case, the impugned order dated 27.02.2020 (Annexure P- 6 1) has been passed against the Petitioner on account of alleged negligence, misconduct, and a lackadaisical attitude in discharging his assigned duties. It is also not in dispute that several show- cause notices were issued, however, the record does not reveal the specific dates on which they were served on the delinquent employee. Upon perusal of the said notices, it appears that a very short time of about 1 to 3 days has been given to the Petitioner for his reply and no specific facts and instances have been mentioned therein, therefore, it is explicit that no proper opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the delinquent employee. To confront the allegations, it is essential that the enquiry report be furnished to the Petitioner, however, even on record, it is not established that any such report was ever served, which indicates that proper procedure was not followed. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini (Supra) categorically held that even for contractual employee, 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. For the sake of brevity, relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder :- 7 "34. It is profitable to refer to what five learned Judges of this Court laid down in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 5: “28. The position may, therefore, be summed up as follows : Any and every termination of service is not a dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. A termination of service brought about by the exercise of a contractual right is not per se dismissal or removal, as has been held by this Court in Satish Chander Anand v. Union of India [(1953) 1 SCC 420 : 1953 SCR 655]. Likewise the termination of service by compulsory retirement in terms of a specific rule regulating the conditions of service is not tantamount to the infliction of a punishment and does not attract Article 311(2), as has also been held by this Court in Shyam Lal v.State of Uttar Pradesh [(1954) 1 SCC 572 : (1955) 1 SCR 26]. In either of the two abovementioned cases the termination of the service did not carry with it the penal consequences of loss of pay, or allowances under Rule 52 of the Fundamental Rules. It is true that the misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification may be the motive or the inducing factor which influences the Government to take action under the terms of the contract of employment or the specific service rule, nevertheless, if a right exists, under the contract or the rules, to terminate the service the motive operating on the mind of the Government is, as Chagla, C.J., has said in Shrinivas Ganesh V. Union of India, [58 Bom LR 673 : AIR 1956 Bom 455] wholly irrelevant. In short, if the termination of service is founded on the right flowing from contract or the service rules then, prima facie, the termination is not a punishment and carries with it no evil consequences and so Article 311 is not attracted. But even if the Government has, by contract or under the rules, the right to terminate the employment without going through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to punish the servant and if the termination of service is sought to be founded on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of Article 311 must be complied with. As already stated if the servant has got a right to continue in the post, then, unless the contract of employment or the rules provide to the contrary, his services cannot be terminated otherwise than for misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other good and sufficient cause. A termination of the service of such a servant on such grounds must be a punishment and, therefore, a dismissal or removal within Article 311, for it operates as a forefeiture 8 of his right and he is visited with the evil consequences of loss of pay and allowances. It puts an indelible stigma on the officer affecting his future career. A reduction in rank likewise may be by way of punishment or it may be an innocuous thing. If the government servant has a right to a particular rank, then the very reduction from that rank will operate as a penalty, for he will then lose the emoluments and privileges of that rank. If, however, he has no right to the particular rank, his reduction from an officiating higher rank to his substantive lower rankwill not ordinarily be a punishment. But the mere fact that the servant has no title to the post or the rank and the Government has, by contract, express or implied, or under the rules, the right to reduce him to a lower post does not mean that an order of reduction of a servant to a lower post or rank cannot in any circumstances be a punishment. The real test for determining whether the reduction in such cases is or is not by way ofpunishment is to find out if the order for the reduction also visits the servant with any penal consequences. Thus if the order entails or provides for the forfeiture of his pay or allowances or the loss of his seniority in his substantive rank or the stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion, then that circumstance may indicate that although in form the Government had purported to exercise its right to terminate the employment or to reduce the servant to a lower rank under the terms of the contract of employment or under the rules, in truth and reality the Government has terminated the employment as and by way of penalty. The use of the expression “terminate” or “discharge” is not conclusive. In spite of the use of such innocuous expressions, the court has to apply the two tests mentioned above, namely, (1) whether the servant had a right to the post or the rank, or (2) whether he has been visited with evil consequences of the kind hereinbefore referred to? If the case satisfies either of the two tests then it must be held that the servant has been punished and the termination of his service must be taken as a dismissal or removal from service or the reversion to his substantive rank must be regarded as a reduction in rank and if the requirements of the rules and Article 311, which give protection to government servant have not been complied with, the termination of the service or the reduction in rank must be held to be wrongful and in violation of the constitutional right of the servant.” (emphasis supplied) 9 9. Further, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the matter of Praveen Goyal (referred to above) and Rakesh Roshan Soj (referred to above), has considered the similar issue and concluded that the principle of natural justice mandates that before taking any adverse action, especially termination, the affected party must be given a real and meaningful opportunity to be heard and also 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. 10. The case of Manish Kumar Tiwari (supra), relied upon by learned Counsel for the Respondents, clearly shows that the enquiry report was annexed to the show-cause notice so as to enable the delinquent employee to effectively meet the charges, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to him. In the case of Dev Singh Paikra & Ors (supra), which relates to questioning the advertisement, without any renewal of contract, a fresh employment has been made, therefore, the said case is also distinguishable on facts. In Mangilal Balal (supra), the Court was satisfied that a proper enquiry had been conducted by the Department. In contrast, in the present case, no proper enquiry has been conducted and a stigmatic order has been passed against the Petitioner in breach of the principles of natural justice. 10 Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 27.02.2020 (Annexure P-1) is unsustainable and therefore, the same is hereby quashed/set aside. However, the Respondent Authorities are at liberty to hold proper enquiry/take suitable steps in accordance with law. 11. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya