1 2025:CGHC:52623-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 765 of 2025 Nutan Bhensle D/o Vishnu Lal Bhensle Aged About 31 Years Posted As Technical Assistant, Zila Panchayat District Balod Chhattisgarh. (Presently Terminated) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. C E O, Zila Panchayat District Balod (Chhattisgarh) 3. C E O, Janpad Panchayat District Balod 4. Secretary Gram Panchayat, Jungera Village Jungera, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.10.30 10:21:47 +0530 2 Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 29.10.2025 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 6651 of 2021, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 18/08/2025 passed by the Learned Single Bench in W.P.(S) No. 6651/2021 (ANNEXURE A-1) and further be pleased to grant the reliefs as prayed in the writ petition in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant was appointed as a Technical Assistant on a contractual basis under the Janpad Panchayat, Balod, for the implementation of MNREGA works, initially for one year from 04.12.2015, and her services were subsequently extended in view of her performance. During the execution of a soil (earthen) road construction from Sheetla Mata Mandir to Gondali Kenal, Ranitarai, it was discovered during site demarcation that a portion of the land fell under the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Kherthadih. The work was thereafter carried out on the basis of a new resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat 3 and a duly signed panchnama for Khasra No. 273/1, covering an area of 7.39 hectares. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 2 (CEO, Zila Panchayat, Balod) issued multiple show-cause notices dated 14.07.2021, 08.11.2021, and 12.11.2021, alleging that the appellant had carried out the work without prior approval of the superior authorities and without informing them of the change in alignment. The appellant contended that the impugned notices and the resulting order, approved by the Collector, were issued without affording her an opportunity of hearing, rendering the action arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice. She has therefore sought quashing of the impugned order and reinstatement to her post as Technical Assistant by filing writ petition before the Single Bench which was dismissed. Thus this appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX 10. In the present case, the services of the petitioner were terminated after due enquiry, which was conducted by an Enquiry Committee. The enquiry report would reveal that the petitioner, as well as the other responsible persons, were afforded sufficient 4 opportunity, and their statements were also recorded by the Enquiry Committee. It is also apparent that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before the final decision. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner was a contractual employee and was appointed in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Rules of 2012. 12. The law laid down in the matter of Chandan Prasad Sah (supra) would not help the petitioner, as an enquiry was conducted by a committee constituted by the Collector and sufficient opportunity was afforded. The provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India would not apply as the petitioner was not a government servant. Similarly, the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh rendered in the matter of Pankaj Sharma (supra) would not help the petitioner, since after the issuance of the show-cause notice, sufficient opportunity was provided, and thereafter, the impugned order was passed. 13. The petitioner could not establish the fact that she was not part of the decision making process whereby the direction of an under construction road was changed; rather, she has tried to justify her conduct. The petitioner has not challenged the enquiry report 5 and its findings in this petition. 14. Considering the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. “ 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was appointed to the post of Technical Assistant on a contract basis under respondent No.3 vide order dated 4.12.2015 for a period of one year. She would contend that the services of the appellant was extended from time to time. She would further submit that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zila Panchayat, Balod, issued a show-cause notice dated 14.7.2021 to the appellant, making an allegation that during the inspection of the Central Team, it was found that a direction of the under- construction road was changed without the prior approval of the Superior Authorities. She would also submit that the petitioner filed a reply to the show-cause notice wherein it was stated that the direction of the road was changed pursuant to the resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat dated 29.1.2021 and 13.3.2021. She would further contend that, though an enquiry was conducted by respondent No. 2, the appellant was not afforded the proper opportunity of hearing. She would also contend that on account of irregularities, the services of the appellant has been discontinued, and thus, the order is stigmatic and punitive; therefore, a full- 6 fledged enquiry ought to have been conducted by the authorities concerned. She further placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Vijayakumaran CPV vs. Central University of Kerala and Others, (2020) 12 SCC 426, wherein it is held that if the order of termination of the service of a probationer is stigmatic, he should be afforded an opportunity of hearing. 6. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. They would submit that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 8.11.2021, wherein it was specifically stated that without prior approval of respondents No. 2 & 3, the appellant changed the direction of the road. They would contend that a committee was constituted and an enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the law, and the appellant was afforded sufficient opportunity. They would also submit that the Committee found the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Rojgar Sahayak, and the appellant guilty of the commission of irregularities. They would also contend that the provisions of the law have already been complied with and the principles of natural justice were duly followed; therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition and the present appeal also deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 7 material available in the record. 8. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the material on record, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The appellant was a contractual employee appointed as Technical Assistant under the Janpad Panchayat, Balod, and her services were extended from time to time based on performance. During the execution of the road construction work, some irregularities were found and for which a show-cause notice was issued, followed by a detailed enquiry conducted by a committee constituted by the Collector, wherein the appellant was afforded ample opportunity to present her case. The enquiry report, duly considered by the competent authority, found the appellant and other responsible officials guilty of irregularities. The impugned order of termination was passed after due process, in accordance with the applicable rules, and after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing, in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The appellant has neither challenged the findings of the enquiry committee nor demonstrated any procedural irregularity. 9. Further, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present 8 case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti