1 2026:CGHC:6677 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9744 of 2023 1 - Manoj Singh Rajput S/o Late Ganpat Singh Rajput Aged About 42 Years Rojgar Sahayak At Gram Panchayat, Machandur, Janpad Panchayat Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Secretary Village Panchayat Machandur, Janpad Panchayat Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. A. S. Rajput, Advocate For State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 4 : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/02/2026 1. The present writ petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ or writs for quashing / set aside the order dated 13.12.23 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent no. 4 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Durg, District (C.G.). Durg 10.2 Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Rojgar Sahayak on contractual basis by the respondent No. 4 vide appointment order dated 19.12.2019, and thereafter his services were extended from time to time without any break, lastly up to 12.12.2023, in recognition of his satisfactory performance and continued requirement of his services. A copy of the appointment order dated 19.12.2019 has been filed and marked as Annexure P-1. During the course of his engagement, certain allegations regarding alleged irregularities under the MGNREGA Scheme were levelled against the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Machandur as well as the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, an Enquiry Committee was duly constituted by the competent authority to enquire into the said allegations. After conducting a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Committee submitted its report, categorically holding that the 3 allegations levelled against the petitioner were baseless and false, and no irregularity was found attributable to him. Despite the aforesaid exoneration and without issuing any show-cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 abruptly passed the impugned order dated 13.12.2023 removing the petitioner from the post of Rojgar Sahayak, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and acting in an arbitrary and illegal manner. Being aggrieved by the said arbitrary action, the petitioner has been constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 13.12.2023 passed by respondent No. 4 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is contended that the said order has been passed without issuing any show-cause notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby resulting in a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that the very foundation of the impugned order is vitiated inasmuch as the reason assigned therein alleges that the Enquiry Committee found the petitioner guilty, whereas a bare perusal of the enquiry report clearly reveals that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were found to be baseless and false, and no adverse finding whatsoever was recorded against him. The enquiry report, which has already been brought on record as 4 Annexure P-2, exonerates the petitioner completely, and therefore, the conclusion drawn by respondent No. 4 is not only perverse but also suffers from non-application of mind. It is further argued that the impugned order has been passed in excess of jurisdiction and by an authority lacking competence to remove the petitioner from service, rendering the same void ab initio. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had been continuously working on the post of Rojgar Sahayak since 19.12.2019 and had rendered unblemished service, and the sudden and illegal termination of his services has caused grave financial hardship not only to the petitioner but also to his dependent family members. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned action of the respondents, particularly respondent No. 5, is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as similarly situated persons have not been subjected to such harsh and unjust treatment. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order and for grant of appropriate relief in favour of the petitioner. 4. Learned State counsel as also the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submit that the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 13.12.2023 issued by the answering respondent strictly in compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 06/16.10.2023 passed by respondent No. 3, and therefore no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed 5 to the answering respondent. It is contended that while working as Employment Assistant at Gram Panchayat, Machandur, the petitioner, in connivance with the Sarpanch and Secretary of the said Gram Panchayat, indulged in preparation of forged and fabricated muster rolls in respect of works executed under the MGNREGA Scheme, thereby causing substantial financial loss to the State Government. Learned counsel further submit that an inquiry was duly conducted by the Inquiry Team, which, after a detailed investigation, submitted its report holding the petitioner along with the Sarpanch and Secretary guilty of preparing forged muster rolls and recommended recovery of the embezzled amount from the erring persons. It is further submitted that on the basis of the said enquiry report, recovery of the embezzled amount was effected from the petitioner and other concerned persons, and thereafter a note sheet was prepared and forwarded to the competent authority recommending removal of the petitioner from the post of Employment Assistant. Learned counsel submit that prior to passing of the impugned order, respondent No. 3 had issued a show-cause notice dated 01.05.2023 to the petitioner for initiating disciplinary action, thereby affording him due opportunity. It is further contended that vide order dated 06.10.2023, respondent No. 3 directed the answering respondent to ensure removal of the petitioner from service, and in compliance thereof, the impugned order dated 13.12.2023 was passed. It is emphasized that the petitioner was 6 appointed on contractual basis by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Durg, and therefore the answering respondent was duty-bound to act in accordance with the directions issued by respondent No. 3. Learned counsel lastly submit that the order passed by respondent No. 3, which forms the basis of the impugned action, has not been challenged by the petitioner, and therefore the present writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and has carefully perused the pleadings and documents placed on record. 6. The undisputed facts emerging from the record reveal that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Rojgar Sahayak on contractual basis vide appointment order dated 19.12.2019 issued by respondent No. 4, and his services were extended from time to time without any break, lastly up to 12.12.2023. During the subsistence of his contractual engagement, certain allegations regarding alleged irregularities under the MGNREGA Scheme were levelled against the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Machandur as well as the petitioner, pursuant to which an Enquiry Committee was constituted by the competent authority. 7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the enquiry report annexed by the petitioner as Annexure P-2 clearly records a finding that the allegations against the petitioner were baseless and false. The respondents have not been able to demonstrate how, despite such exoneration, the petitioner could be removed from service on 7 the same set of allegations. The impugned order does not disclose any independent reasoning nor does it record any cogent justification for discarding the findings of the Enquiry Committee. This Court finds substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. It is an admitted position that no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order. Even assuming that a show-cause notice dated 01.05.2023 was issued by respondent No. 3, the impugned order dated 13.12.2023 passed by respondent No. 4 does not reflect any consideration of the petitioner’s reply or compliance with the mandatory requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing before imposing the extreme penalty of removal from service. The contention of the respondents that the impugned order was passed merely in compliance of the directions issued by respondent No. 3 also does not impress this Court. Compliance with superior directions cannot absolve the authority from adhering to the principles of natural justice and from independently applying its mind to the facts of the case. An order passed mechanically, without application of mind and in disregard of an enquiry report exonerating the employee, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. This Court is also unable to accept the submission that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the order passed 8 by respondent No. 3 has not been challenged. The impugned order dated 13.12.2023, which has civil consequences for the petitioner, is independently assailable, and merely because it is stated to be passed in compliance of an earlier order does not deprive the petitioner of his right to challenge the same. It is a settled principle of law that even a contractual employee cannot be removed from service arbitrarily or in violation of the principles of natural justice. The action of the respondents, in the present case, suffers from arbitrariness, non-application of mind and procedural impropriety, and thus offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Swati Priaydarshani v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2139, 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. 11. The view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini (supra) goes to show that before passing 9 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 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 10 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 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 11 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 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 12 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." 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 13.12.2023 passed by respondent No. 4 is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 13. The impugned order dated 13.12.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 4 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Rojgar Sahayak in case vacancy is available forthwith. However, it is made clear that it shall be open to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE