1 2025:CGHC:42385 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1595 of 2021 1 - Virendra Kumar Bandey S/o Bhagchand Bandey, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Baikoni, Thasil Simga, Baikoni, Baloda Bazar, Bansankara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Posted As Rajgar Sahayak, In Gram Panchayat- Baikoni, Tahsil Simga, Baikoni, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary- Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur, P.S. Kewli, Tahsil Civil And Revenue District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Collector Cum District Program Coordinator, Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriy Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Yojna, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayatt Balodabazar Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Simga, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Deputy Director Krishi Development And Farmer Welfare And Technology Department, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “I. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. II. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 04-02-2021 issued by respondent No. 4 (ANNEXURE P-1) and directed to provide service to the petitioner. III. That, any other relief/ crder which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Baikoni, Tehsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar – Bhatapara, vide order dated 11.5.2007, on a contractual basis for a period of one year. He would further submit that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.11.2020 by the Chief Executive Officer, Baloda Bazar – Bhatapara, making the allegation that the petitioner maintained a forged muster roll and committed irregularities in the construction of a check dam. It was specifically alleged that he had engaged six members of his family in MNREGA work, and made payment of wages to the tune of Rs.30,780/-. It is also alleged that he had engaged seven members, who were relatives of the President of the Watershed Committee, and paid them wages of Rs. 35,340/- by forging signatures in the muster roll. He would contend that though an enquiry was conducted but there were no serious allegations against 3 the petitioner. He would argue that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he engaged his family members and made payment of wages. He would further contend that the family members were duly registered as labourers under the Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Gramin Rojgar Guarantee (MGNREGA) scheme, and therefore, their engagement and subsequent payment of wages were lawful. He would also submit that the order of termination on this ground alone by the authority concerned is erroneous and the same is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She would submit that according to the order impugned, the petitioner had forged signatures on demand letters and further, engaged his family members and members related to the President of Watershed Committee in the construction of the check dam and made payment of wages. She would contend that a proper enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was afforded a sufficient opportunity of hearing, and that the petitioner was a contractual employee. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner would show that while discharging duties as Rojgar Sahayak, he had engaged six members of the family, entering their names in the muster roll, and made payment to the tune of Rs.30,780/-. Simultaneously, he also entered the names of seven persons associated with the President of the Watershed Committee in the 4 muster roll and made payment of wages to the tune of Rs.35,340/-. Another allegation against the petitioner is that he forged demand letters. An enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Land Conservation Officer. The petitioner has not challenged the procedural part of the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has recorded categorical findings against the petitioner, and the allegations have been found to be established. 6. Considering the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere into the matter. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi