1 2025:CGHC:51100 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9907 of 2019 1 - Nagesh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Aged About 31 Years Working As Rojgar Sahayak At Gram Panchayat- Kewachhi, Janpad Panchyat Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., 2 - Collector Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayat Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., 5 - Program Officer Janpad Panchayat Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Navneet Yadav appears on behalf of Shri A.K. Yadav, Advocate. For Respondents 1 & 2 : Shri Aman Deep Singh, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents 3 to 5 : Shri Alok Bakshi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.10.14 17:26:03 +0530 2 14/10/2025 : 1. The petitioner was appointed as Rojgar Sahayak and was posted at Gram Panchayat Kewachi, Janpad Panchayat Bemetara vide order dated 31st May, 2010 (wrongly mentioned at para-8.2 of the writ petition as the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, as admitted by counsel for the petitioner) on contract basis. His services were extended from time to time. However, by the impugned order dated 20th September, 2019, the petitioner’s contract appointment has been terminated on certain allegation of committing irregularities in payment of labours and dereliction of duties. 2. It was argued that the contract appointment was continuing for a period of one year for each succeeding year, however, the same has been terminated without affording any opportunity of hearing or issuing show cause notice and, therefore, the same is illegal and arbitrary being in violation of the principles of natural justice enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Commissioner, MGNREGA has issued a circular on 27th September, 2018 regarding service conditions of the Rojgar Sahayak and one of the conditions is that if any irregularity is found during enquiry by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, the report shall be forwarded to the CEO, Zila Panchayat and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee & after due approval from the Coordinator of the District Programme/Collector, termination proceeding can be initiated. But in the present case, no such exercise has been done and the CEO, Janpad 3 Panchayat Bemetara, in violation of the principles of natural justice and in arbitrary manner, terminated the services of the petitioner. Hence this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel and learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 5 would submit that the petitioner was a contract employee and he was found to have committed certain irregularities and dereliction of duties because of which order of termination has been passed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition carefully. 6. Perusal of the impugned order of termination would manifest that the petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect. The order does not refer to any show cause notice or enquiry and only a fact finding enquiry has been conducted by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Bemetara wherein an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to participate. Thus the impugned order is per se in violation of the principles of natural justice, which is clearly established from the language of the order of termination itself. Therefore, for the reason that no order adverse to an individual be passed without following the principles of natural justice, as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association & Ors{AIR 2017 SC 4072}, the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) dated 20.9.2019 deserves to be and is hereby quashed in limine. 7. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the competent authority to take appropriate action after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner 4 or to take decision regarding continuation of the petitioner’s services at the end of completion of the period of contract appointment. 8. It is made clear that the observations made in the preceding paragraphs of this order shall not be construed in favour of either parties and any action or proceeding initiated against the petitioner after issuance of show cause notice shall be decided strictly in accordance with its own merits and law. 9. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve