1 2025:CGHC:54689 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1567 of 2023 1 - Prasann Kumar Bhatpahre S/o Shri Ramnath Bhatpahre Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Konchara, Gram Panchayat Mitthu Navagaon, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Zila Panchayat Bilaspur Through Its Chief Executive Officer District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Janpad Panchayat Kota Through Its Chief Executive Officer Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Prachi Diwan, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 10/11/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the legality and propriety of the termination order dated 22/06/2018 (Annexure P/7) issued by respondent No.5, whereby his service as a Rojgar Sahayak was terminated without any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner initially approached this Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Court, which condoned the delay and directed him to file an appeal before the Collector. Despite filing the appeal, it was rejected on 12/07/2021, citing lack of provision under the relevant notification. The subsequent appeal filed by petitioner before the Additional Commissioner was also dismissed on 02/01/2023 for the same reason. Hence, the petitioner seeks judicial intervention against the termination and the subsequent rejection of his appeals seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned letter dated 22.06.2018, Annexure P-7, issued by the Respondent No.5. And reinstate the service of the petitioner with back wages. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant compensations to petitioner and any other relief(s) as deemed fit and necessary by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and the circumstances of the case. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant cost of present petition.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Rojgar Sahayak in the Janpad Panchayat by the order of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kota, dated 13/02/2008. Since his appointment, the petitioner had been performing his duties with utmost sincerity, honesty, and dedication. Subsequently, a complaint was filed against the petitioner alleging that he had not performed his work properly and had taken money in the name of preparing Job Cards and Pass Books. In response to the complaint, an investigating team conducted inquiries in the relevant village. It was found that the villagers were not aware of the allegations made against the petitioner. Further, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kota, constituted an enquiry team and directed the Gram Sarpanch to communicate the villagers, stating that the complainant was to be present for the enquiry scheduled on 20/12/2016. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply before the Office of Gram Panchayat Mitthu Navagaon, 3 Janpad Panchayat Kota, denying all allegations. He also provided consent letters signed by villagers confirming that he had neither engaged in any illegal activity nor demanded any money for preparing Job Cards or Pass Books. On 20/12/2016, the investigating officer visited the village, but the complainant did not appear or participate in the investigation. Consequently, the officer scheduled a further enquiry for 28/12/2016. The allegations against the petitioner were never proved, as the complainant failed to appear or participate in the enquiry. Despite this, respondent No.5, acting in compliance with an order of the District Office dated 01/05/2018, terminated the service of petitioner as a Rojgar Sahayak on 22/06/2018 without providing any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner challenged the termination order before this Court. By its order dated 16/10/2020, this Court condoned the delay in filing the petition and directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Collector. Following the direction of this Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, who rejected it on 12/07/2021, stating that no provision of appeal existed under the notification/clarification dated 30/05/2019 in C.G. Civil Service (Contract Appointment). The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, which was dismissed on 02/01/2023 for the same reason. In view of the above, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the termination order dated 22/06/2018, as well as the subsequent rejection of his appeals by the Collector and Additional Commissioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 22/06/2018, issued by respondent No.5, terminating the service of the petitioner as a Rojgar Sahayak, is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of being heard prior to the issuance of the termination order, which is a fundamental violation of his right to fair procedure. The petitioner had submitted a detailed reply before the Office of Gram Panchayat Mitthu 4 Navagaon, Janpad Panchayat Kota, categorically denying all allegations leveled against him. Along with his reply, the petitioner submitted consent letters signed by the villagers affirming that he had not engaged in any illegal activity and had not demanded any money in connection with the preparation of Job Cards or Pass Books. These submissions clearly established his innocence and should have been taken into account before passing any punitive order. It is also pertinent to note that the enquiry team conducted multiple investigations regarding the allegations against the petitioner but did not find any evidence implicating him. Despite the absence of any substantive proof against the petitioner, the respondent authorities arbitrarily proceeded to terminate his service. Such action is in direct violation of the well-settled principles of natural justice, which mandate that no person should be deprived of their livelihood without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves. Furthermore, the Collector and the Additional Commissioner, while considering the appeals filed by the petitioner in compliance with the directions of this Court, failed to decide the matter on its merits. Instead, they dismissed the appeals solely on the ground of a technical issue, i.e., the alleged non-existence of a provision of appeal under the notification/clarification dated 30/05/2019 in C.G. Civil Service (Contract Appointment). Such approach is arbitrary and demonstrates a clear disregard for the directions of this Court, as well as for the principles of equity and justice. The petitioner also enjoys unequivocal support from the villagers, who consistently confirmed during the investigation that they had no knowledge of any wrongdoing on the part of the petitioner. Their statements further reinforce the fact that the allegations were baseless and that the termination order was issued without any valid justification. In view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the impugned termination order, along with the subsequent dismissal of the appeals filed by petitioner by the Collector and Additional Commissioner, is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. The 5 petitioner, therefore, deserves immediate relief by way of quashing the termination order and restoring him to his service with all consequential benefits. 4. Learned State counsel, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Rojgar Sahayak in the Janpad Panchayat, Kota, District Bilaspur (CG) vide order dated 13.02.2008 (Annexure P/1) on a purely contractual and temporary basis with a fixed salary of Rs. 2000/-. As per the terms of his appointment, if his work was found unsatisfactory, his services could be terminated by giving one month’s prior notice. The Gram Panchayat Nirtu Nawagaon, on account of the negligent work performance of petitioner, passed a resolution recommending the removal of the petitioner. A written complaint was also lodged by the villagers stating that the petitioner was not performing his duties properly, which caused inconvenience to the villagers and requested his removal. In response, respondent No.5 constituted an enquiry team to investigate the allegations. The enquiry team conducted a detailed investigation, recorded statements of witnesses and also recorded the statement of the petitioner. The enquiry concluded that the petitioner had indulged in threatening villagers and demanding money for preparing Job Cards, sanctioning land leveling amounts, and mid-day meal funds. After consideration of the enquiry report, the respondent authority issued a show cause notice dated 27.02.2017 to the petitioner, who submitted his reply. However, the reply was found unsatisfactory. Consequently, the competent authority directed respondent No.5 to terminate the petitioner from service, which was done vide order dated 22.06.2018. It is submitted that the petitioner was provided with a proper and fair opportunity of hearing during the enquiry process. The termination order dated 22.06.2018, as well as the appellate orders dated 12.07.2021 and 02.01.2023, are based on factual findings, reasoned consideration, and 6 proper application of mind. In view of the foregoing, it is submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the actions of the respondents. The petitioner has failed to establish any case warranting interference. The instant petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. The principles of natural justice, which are part of the statutory framework under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, mandate that no person should be deprived of livelihood without an opportunity to defend themselves. In the present case, the written submissions of petitioner and the villagers’ statements were not considered before issuing the termination order, which renders the impugned order procedurally unsustainable. 7. In the matter of Swati Priaydarshani v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 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 effect that even in case of contractual appointment, if any stigmatic order is to be passed, it may be passed only 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 (Digambar Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 22.08.2024 held 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. 8. 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 7 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 [(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 above mentioned 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 8 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 other disqualification, then it is or 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 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 9 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 10 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." 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was not given an appropriate opportunity of hearing. The impugned termination order dated 22.06.2018 is therefore quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to proceed further in accordance with law and give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, strictly in compliance with Rule 7 of the Panchayat Rajya Adhiniyam. However, this quashing shall not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate action in accordance with law. The respondents are directed to provide the petitioner a full and fair opportunity of hearing before passing any further orders affecting her service. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent of quashing the impugned notice dated 22.06.2018. The petitioner shall continue to serve in his post until a fresh decision is taken. The respondents are at liberty to take further action strictly in accordance with the law, after affording the petitioner an adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE