1 2025:CGHC:20653 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3191 of 2025 1 Umashankar Sahu S/o Shri Baliram Sahu Aged About 31 Years Accountant (Contract), R/o Old Bus Stand, Main Road, Infront Of Axis Bank, Charama, P.S. And Tahsil- Charama, District- Kanker, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Building And Other Construction Workers, Welfare Board, Sector- 24, Block- A, 1st Floor Office Complex, P.S. And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 Commissioner Office Of Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 3 Collector Office Of Collector, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, (C.G.) 4 Labour Officer Office Of Labour Officer, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.05.08 11:37:33 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, Dy.G.A. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 06/05/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 28/03/2025 (Annexure-P/2) whereby the Collector/respondent No.3 has removed/terminated the petitioner from the post of Accountant (Contract) on the basis of some allegations leveled against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Accountant (Contract) in the Labour Department on 26/04/2017. After completion of eight years, on the basis of some allegations, the respondent No.3/Collector passed the order of termination of the service of the petitioner on 28/03/2025, without issuance of any show cause notice, without affording any opportunity of hearing & without conducting any departmental enquiry. He further submits that the order of termination is a stigmatic order, which appears from the order itself and before termination or removing the petitioner from service, the respondent’s authority has to conduct a Departmental Inquiry and has to give sufficient opportunity of hearing and subsequently by observing 3 principals of natural justice, they can take necessary action against the petitioner. Even the Collector has not issued any notice to the petitioner and no explanation was sought from the petitioner before passing the order impugned, which is bad in law. Learned counsel has relied the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in WPS No. 8212/2023 decided on 03/01/2023 and submits that the removal or termination of a contractual appointee, if any stigmatic order is to be passed, the Departmental Enquiry is must. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that on the basis of some allegation leveled against the petitioner, the order of termination was passed by the respondent No.3/Collector. Hence, there is no illegality and infirmity in the order impugned. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 5. From perusal of order of termination dated 28/03/2025 passed by the Collector, it appears that the Collector has passed the order impugned without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is a non-speaking and unreasoned order. Further it appears that neither any departmental inquiry was conducted nor any notice was issued before passing the order of termination. 6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in 2024 SCC 4 OnLine SC 2139 decided on 22.08.2024, in which the ratio laid down by the Apex 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. 7. Taking into consideration of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court and for the reasons and discussions made here-in-above, the impugned order dated 28/03/2025 (Annexure P/2) is liable to be and is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all the benefits following from quashment of impugned order dated 28/03/2025. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to hold proper enquiry, if so advised. 8. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti