1 2025:CGHC:56870 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(S) No.2524 of 2020 Smt. Dudheshwari Chandra @ Deepti Chandra W/o Shri Babulal Aged About 38 Years Ex- Block Coordinator Under The Mitanin Programme Block- Jaijaipur, District- Janjgir-Champa, R/o Village- Kirkida, Block- Jaijaipur, District- Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Director State Health Resource Centre, SHSRC Building, Kalbadi, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Medical And Health Services Officer Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Block Medical Officer Block- Jaijaipur, Chhattisgarh SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.11.24 15:04:40 +0530 2 5 - The District Coordinator Mitanin Programme, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Shri Rajeev Bharat, G.A Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 24.11.2025 1. This Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “10.1. It is therefore prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned Orders dated 06.07.2019 and dated 24.12.2019 and further be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits and arrears of salary in the interest of justice. 10.3. Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petition.” 2. The foundational facts necessary for adjudication in the present case are that the Petitioner was posted as Block Coordinator under the Mitanin Programme in Block-Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa. After the fact finding enquiry with regard to allegations of demanding bribe/financial irregularities, the services of the Petitioner were terminated vide order dated 3 06.07.2019 (Annexure P-1) without conducting proper enquiry as per the guidelines issued by the State vide Circular dated 24.09.2011, which is quoted below:- " मितानि ्ቚशि ्ቌक क परिवता यदि खण्ड शिनिकत्सा अमिक अथव जिला सान्वयक क" आं$कला अ%सा निकसा मितानि ्ቚशि ्ቌक क कय सा$ता&षक ीሻ) ीሻ* ता& उसा ्ቚरिवक क" कय, क- निवस्ता/ता सा्ቌ जिला सान्वयक ቛኋ इ दि नि2 3 4 5 गई अप"ቌኌ्ቌता कय, क- सा9, शिसाक कयय& शिसाक ्ቚनिताव" व : ्ቚनिताव" क" आं प क- व"ग। इसा सा्ቌ क" आं प ्ቚशि ्ቌक क& अप" कय 4 सा% ला" ीሻ"ता% एक ' ीሻ क साय दिय साकता ीሻ*। एक ीሻ पቐኋता> ्ቚशि ्ቌक क" कय क- प%? सा क जिला सान्वयक ्ቚशि ्ቌक क& कय सा" प/थक क" अथव ख" क- अ% $सा निवस्ता/ता बण निडता खण्ड शिनिकत्सा अमिक क- अध्य्ቌता 4 गनिवता प$ सास्य3 क- सामिनिता क& ्ቚ"निषता क4ग"। मितानि ्ቚशि ्ቌक ቛኋ निकसा ्ቚक क- ग$भी अनियमिताता अथव कय्ቅ क" उቌኔ"श्य3 व निवपता आंण/ कय निकय" " प भी जिला सान्वयक सा$ब$मिता ्ቚकण क- $ क ्ቚनिताव" उप&क्ता सामिनिता क& ्ቚस्ता%ता क4ग" व इसाक- ्ቚनिता जिला &डला अमिक व ज्य स्वቝኚय सा$सा क" न््ቖ क& उपला्ቓ कय4ग"। सामिनिता उप&क्ता%सा ्ቚप्ता सा्ቌ $ ्ቚनिताव" क" आं प सा$ब$मिता ्ቚशि ्ቌक क& कय सा" प/थक क" क" सा$ब$ 4 निणय ला"ग। निणय क" ीሻ"ता% सामिनिता क" न्य9ता ता सास्य साीሻता ीሻ&" निीሻए। ज्य स्वቝኚय सा$सा क" न््ቖ अथव सा$लालाय, स्वቝኚय सा"वए$ ቛኋ आंवश्यकता%सा ्ቚकण3 क- ज्य स्ता सा" $ कवक सा$ब$मिता ्ቚशि ्ቌक क& कय सा" प/थक क" क" सा$ब$ 4 य सामिनिता क& अ% ण क- साकता ीሻ*। इसा ्ቚक ज्य स्ता सा" क- गई अ% $सा अ%सा सा$ब$मिता सामिनिता ቛኋ निणय शिलाय ीሻ&ग एव$ %ख्य शिनिकत्सा एव$ स्वቝኚय अमिक ቛኋ इसाक- निग क- ीሻ&ग।" 3. Contrastingly, learned Counsel for the State supports the order impugned and submits that the Petitioner herself has admitted the charges levelled against her in the show cause notice, therefore, there is no need for any regular Departmental Enquiry. 4. In reply to the aforesaid, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is not the appointing authority for Mitanin and she has also not admitted that she has accepted any bribe. He further submits that neither any statement of the 4 Complainants has been recorded nor any opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the Petitioner for cross-examination for such a serious allegation. He further submits that both the named persons/Complainants i.e. Meena Narang and her husband Ravindra Narang have not filed any affidavit stating that any such demand has ever been made, therefore, the action on the part of the State authorities is in violation of principles of natural justice. He placed reliance on the matter of Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in SCC OnLine SC 2139. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned and the documents annexed herewith carefully. 6. It stands established beyond cavil that no Departmental Enquiry has been conducted on the Petitioner, who is a Block- Coordinator for such serious charges with regard to demand of bribe for appointment/selection for the post of Mitanin. The authorities have not conducted any regular enquiry against her to find out as to whether any appointment has been made by her for the post of Mitanin in the said District in violation of the guidelines issued as per the said Circular. It is pertinent here to take note of the fact that for such a serious complaint, action has been initiated by the authorities only on the basis of show cause notice. It is alleged that the reply from the Petitioner was obtained in an arm twisting method, though the said reply was disputed by her. Later 5 on, Meena Narang and her husband Ravindra Narang both have filed an affidavit denying the aforesaid allegations. 7. For the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that for such a serious charge, regular Departmental Enquiry ought to have been conducted while affording an opportunity of hearing in view of the principle laid down in Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), therefore, the action on the part of the concerned authorities is in violation of principles of natural justice and as such, the order impugned is per se illegal, which is hereby set aside. 8. The Respondent authorities are directed to take the Petitioner back into her services forthwith and they would be at liberty to initiate further enquiry against her strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, if so advised. 9. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the instant Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya