Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51526 (CHH)

RAJENDRA KUMAR SINHA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/11249/2025 · 2025-10-08

Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:50255 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11249 of 2025 1 - Rajendra Kumar Sinha S/o Narayan Sinha, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Chorbhatthi, Post - Bortara, Tahsil - Saja, District - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saja, District - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Veer Verma, Advocate. For State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 09/10 /2025 1. The petitioner who is working as Awas Mitra and posted at Janpad Panchayt Saja, District- Bemetara has filed this petition assailing order dated 07.05.2025 by which his services have been terminated alleging demand of money as bribe for location change. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned termination order dated 07.05.2025 has been passed mechanically without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is in violation of principle of natural justice and would pray for setting aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.10 11:28:27 +0530 2 petitioner is contractual employee and there was a demand of bribe by the petitioner from one Radhelal Sahu for changing location of his house, therefore, the impugned termination order has rightly been passed and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioner is contractual employee and the observation made by the respondent may affect his future, therefore, the instant petition is disposed of. 5. It is made clear that the observation made by the respondent shall not come in way of the petitioner in securing further employment with the State in the Panchayat Department or any other department on the same post or any other posts. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun