1 2025:CGHC:40899 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 953 of 2023 1 - Anil Kumar Nishad S/o Shri Ramji Nishad Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Themakhurd Post Themakhurd Tehsil Dondi District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Dondi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 13/08/2025 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28/11/2022 passed by the Collector, Balod, which upheld an earlier order dated 16/09/2022 removing the petitioner from service on grounds of financial irregularities. The removal was based on allegations of misconduct during service. The petitioner challenged this decision by filing an appeal before the Collector. However, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability. As a result, the petitioner is left without a remedy at the departmental level. The present petition is thus filed challenging the legality of these orders seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 pleased to set aside the order dated 28/11/2022 arising out of order dated 16/09/2022. 10.2 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioner safeguarding his interest.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Rojgaar Assistant on a regular post for the Gram Panchayat on 31/08/2009. Subsequently, certain villagers lodged complaints against the petitioner, alleging financial irregularities, particularly related to the MNREGA scheme. It was claimed that the petitioner entered names into records for compost formation work that was never actually conducted. A Janpad-level enquiry was initiated and concluded that the petitioner had committed irregularities in violation of MNREGA guidelines. Based on the enquiry report, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), District Panchayat Balod, issued a show cause notice dated 31/03/2022, asking the petitioner to respond within three days, failing which ex-parte action would be taken under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 04/04/2022, denying all allegations and asserting that he was neither responsible for the irregularities nor received any monetary benefit. He claimed that signatures of witnesses were obtained on blank papers and requested a fair enquiry. Despite his response, on 16/09/2022, the CEO, District Panchayat Balod, directed the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Dondi, to dismiss the petitioner from service. The dismissal order was passed the same day by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Dondi. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act before 3 the Collector, Balod, asserting that the dismissal was done without a proper enquiry, without providing an opportunity of hearing, and in violation of natural justice. However, the Collector dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable, citing that the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012 do not provide for an appeal in cases of dismissal from contractual service. The petitioner contends that the Collector failed to consider the substantive grounds raised in the appeal and dismissed it merely on technicalities. He also argues that the dismissal was effected without cross-examination of witnesses or affording proper defence. Statements of witnesses Bihari Ram, Santosh Kumar, and Unni Bai support the version of petitioner. Additionally, a circular dated 16/08/2022 issued by the Madhya Pradesh State Rojgaar Guarantee Parishad provides that instead of dismissal, actions like warnings, "No Work No Pay", or withholding of honorarium should be considered for Rojgaar Sahayaks. In a similar matter, this Court had held in WPS No. 9389/2019 that a revision before the Commissioner is a statutory alternative remedy and must be decided within 90 days. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 28/11/2022, arising out of the termination order dated 16/09/2022, is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and illegal, and hence deserves to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. The termination has been carried out in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, without affording the petitioner a proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that the order of termination passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dondi, is based merely on allegations and without any substantive inquiry or verification. No opportunity was 4 given to the petitioner to defend himself effectively or to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were allegedly relied upon. Such denial of fair procedure makes the action unsustainable in law. The petitioner, who has been serving since his appointment on 31/08/2009, had an unblemished record until the present set of vague and unsubstantiated allegations surfaced. Despite this, neither the CEO nor the Collector gave due consideration to the consistent denial of the allegations made by petitioner and the documents placed on record to support his innocence. It is also submitted that the petitioner had duly filed a detailed reply before the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Dondi, denying all the charges and requesting a fair enquiry. He reiterated these points before the Collector in his appeal. However, the Collector dismissed the appeal solely on the technical ground that contractual employees have no right to appeal under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012, without examining the merits of the case, rendering the dismissal arbitrary and perverse. Moreover, it is argued that both the CEO and the Collector failed to examine the credibility of the allegations through proper verification or examination of witnesses. A decision based solely on accusations, without due process, cannot stand in the eyes of law. The petitioner had also submitted supporting documents which negate the allegations and establish his version of events, yet these were completely overlooked. Therefore, in light of the clear procedural lapses, denial of natural justice, and failure to consider relevant material, it is prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel for 5 respondent No. 3 opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and jointly submit that the petitioner was serving as a Rojgaar Assistant on a contractual basis, and his service was governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012. Upon receiving complaints of financial irregularities under MNREGA, a proper enquiry was conducted at the Janpad level, and the allegations were found to be true. It is further submitted that a show cause notice was duly issued to the petitioner, to which he responded, but his explanation was found unsatisfactory. Thereafter, following the procedure laid down in the applicable rules, the competent authority passed the order of termination. Since the petitioner was a contractual employee, there is no statutory right of appeal under the said Rules, and the Collector rightly dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable. Hence, the action taken by the authorities is legal, justified, and in accordance with the rules governing contractual employment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused documents annexed along with the record. 6. Considering the entire aspect of the matter and further considering the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 8212 of 2023 as also in WPS No. 8458 of 2024, in which a detail discussion was made while considering the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case 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 6 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. 7. 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 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 7 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 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 8 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 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 9 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 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." 8. Reverting back to the present matter, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 16/09/2022 and 28/11/2022, whereby he was removed from service on the ground of alleged financial irregularities. The service of petitioner being contractual in nature does not exempt the authorities from following the principles of natural justice and due process before passing any stigmatic order. 9. It is apparent from the records that the order of dismissal was passed without conducting any proper departmental enquiry or affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The petitioner had denied the allegations through a detailed reply and had sought a fair inquiry. However, these submissions were not duly considered by the 10 authorities. Instead, the order of termination was passed merely on the basis of allegations and the findings of an enquiry report which itself appears to have lacked procedural fairness. The impugned orders are therefore found to be illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of natural justice. Without conducting any departmental enquiry or affording a fair hearing, the authorities could not have passed the dismissal order. 10. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 16/09/2022 and 28/11/2022 are quashed. The concerned authorities are directed to hold a proper enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner, providing him full opportunity of hearing and fair trial. After completing such enquiry in a fair and just manner, the authorities may pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 11. This petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Shayna