1 2025:CGHC:51445 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4109 of 2023 Uday Prasad Singh S/o Rambarn Singh Aged About 39 Years Occupation- Rojagar Shayak, R/o Gram Panchayat Santoshi Nagar, Janpad Panchayat- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Development, Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Police Station-Rakhi, Tahsil And District- Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector And District Programme Co-Ordinator, Under Mahatman Gandhi, Narega, Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, District-Panchayat, Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 5 - The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Santoshi Nagar, District- Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State/respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.16 14:23:07 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 15.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vivek Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2. 2. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issued a writ /or writs/order/ or orders / to quashed the order dated 31.05.2023, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, District: Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.), and further be pleased to direct the respondent concern to allow the petitioner continue on his post and place, in the ends of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court, deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.4 An affidavit in support of this petition is filed here with.” 3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Village Rojgar Sahayak on 19.10.2010, and his services continued uninterruptedly till his removal. The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, issued a show cause notice dated 22.03.2023 alleging that the petitioner had failed to take interest in the work, violated 3 the orders and directions of senior officers, and did not properly discharge his duties. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply denying all the allegations and asserting that he had performed his duties diligently and without any negligence. However, without considering the reply, without conducting any proper departmental inquiry, and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence or defend himself, the respondents, in an arbitrary manner, passed the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 removing the petitioner from service. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of removal is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities, without conducting any inquiry into the allegations, removed the petitioner from service merely by issuing a show cause notice. Learned counsel emphasizes that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not considered, and the impugned order was passed arbitrarily. It is contended that removal from service being a major punishment could not have been imposed on an employee who has served diligently for almost 13 years, merely on the basis of a show cause notice. It is further submitted that the proper procedure requires a full inquiry and an opportunity to produce evidence to substantiate or refute the allegations, which was completely ignored in the present case. The allegations against the petitioner remain unproven, and yet he was removed from service, which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and settled 4 legal propositions. Lastly, learned counsel further submits that the present case is identical to WPS No.8212/2023, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2025, and therefore, similar relief may be granted to the petitioner in the present case. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, has fairly submitted that the case of the present petitioner is identical to WPS No.8212/2023, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2025. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection as also the order dated 03.01.2025 passed in WPS No.8212/2023. 7. This Court, after considering the material on record, allowed WPS No.8212/2023 on 03.01.2025 in the following terms:- “13. From the perusal of the impugned order, it seems that the stigmatic order has been passed levelling allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner was reluctant in performing his duty and he has disobeyed the instructions of the respondent authorities as he has failed to give 100 days employment to the labourers. There are several allegations made by the Sarpanch against the petitioner as also, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. As such, he has been removed from services by giving one month’s prior notice. 14. From the aforesaid order, it reflects that several allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, upon which certain enquiry has been conducted, and in enquiry report dated 30.12.2022, nothing was 5 found against the petitioner. In fact, the charges levelled against the petitioner were not found to be proved. But instead of that, the petitioner has been removed from service without conducting any enquiry much less giving any proper opportunity of hearing. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139 decided on 22.08.2024, in which the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is to the fact that even if for contractual appointment, 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. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 4969/2015 in the matter of Digambar Chandrakar vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others decided on 22.08.2024 and in the said case also, this Court of the view 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. 16. The view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini (supra) goes to show that before passing any stigmatic order for removal of any employee from service, a departmental enquiry is required to be done, which has not been done in this case. In para 34 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “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 6 [(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 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 7 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 rank will 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 of punishment 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." 8 17. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as after hearing learned counsel for the parties as also considering the facts of the case in the light of abovequoted judgments, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 23.06.2023 has been passed in a very harsh manner without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If any stigmatic order is to be passed then the foremost thing which has to be done by the employer is to gave a notice levelling specific allegation against the petitioner and by holding an enquiry after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order, if any, can be passed, it may be passed, after holding enquiry and by giving due opportunity of hearing to the employee/delinquent which is lacking in this case. 18. Taking into consideration of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court and for the reasons and discussions made here-in- above, the impugned order dated 23.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all the benefits following from quashment of impugned order dated 23.06.2023. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to hold proper enquiry, if so advised. 19. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations/directions. There shall be no order as to costs.” 8. In view of the above observations and considering the fact that the present case stands on identical footing to WPS No.8212/2023, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The said order has been passed without holding any departmental inquiry or providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 9 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Village Rojgar Sahayak and to grant all consequential benefits arising from such reinstatement. 10. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent authorities to conduct a proper departmental inquiry in accordance with law, if they choose, by affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed in the above observations/directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh