1 2026:CGHC:6673 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8876 of 2023 Ishwar Manjhi S/o Fekulal Manjhi, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Birra, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Employment Guarantee Scheme, Vikas Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bhamhanidih, Tayhsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 4 - Rohit Chandra S/o Late Shankar Lal Chandra, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Borsi, P.S. Birra, P.O. Taldeori, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondent(s) /State For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Ms. Natasha Khan, Advocate S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/02/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned termination order (Annexure P/5), whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated by the respondent authorities. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs : 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash the impugned order of termination (Annexure P-5) and direct the petitioner to be reinstated along with entire back wages and consequential benefits in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide adequate security/ protection to the petitioner and their families and may kindly be pleased to call for record of the entire case. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice. 3 3. Necessary facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as Rojgar Sahayak vide order dated 23.2.2017 and had been discharging his duties. An enquiry into the alleged financial irregularities was initiated in the year 2020, which culminated in the order dated 1.9.2020, whereby the petitioner was let off with a last warning subject to the payment of the disputed amount. Subsequently, vide order dated 3.2.2021, the petitioner was directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.19,380/-. In compliance with the said direction, the petitioner deposited the subject amount on 18.2.2021. However, respondent No.4, being aggrieved by the order dated 1.9.2020, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and simultaneously filed WPC No.180/2021 before this Court, wherein vide order dated 17.2.2023, respondent No.2 (Commissioner, Employment Guarantee Scheme) was directed to decide the appeal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Commissioner vide order dated 23.5.2023, decided the appeal preferred by respondent No.4 and allowed the same, holding that termination would be the only justifiable punishment as previously also, he was served with show cause notice for negligence in work. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner, the petitioner was terminated from his services vide the impugned order dated 15.6.2023. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a 4 contractual employee, who has already deposited the disputed amount in strict compliance of the order passed by the respondent authorities. He submits that there was no fresh formal complaint justifying the termination and the impugned order was passed by the competent authority without any basis. He submits that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eyes of law as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner nor was any fresh departmental enquiry initiated prior to passing of the impugned order of removal. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner has committed financial regularities including the entry of forged beneficiaries in muster-roll leading to removal from service. He submits that in the Financial Year 2019-20, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for negligence in work and only a conditional service extension was granted. He also submits that in compliance of the order dated 17.2.2023 passed by this Court in WPC No.180/2021, the respondent No.2/Commissioner has duly considered the appeal filed by respondent No.4 and also afforded a proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned before passing the order dated 25.3.2023. Consequently, respondent No.2 directed the removal of the petitioner from the post of Rojgar Sahayak. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition with utmost circumspection. 5 7. Evidently, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Rozgar Sahayak. Upon an enquiry being conducted, the petitioner was found guilty of committing financial irregularities. The petitioner had previously been issued show cause notices and warnings for dereliction in duty and financial irregularities and a direction was also issued for his removal from service. Subsequently, the respondent authority vide order dated 1.9.2020 granted a last warning to the petitioner and directed him to pay the disputed amount, which was deposited by the petitioner. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the order dated 1.9.2020 (whereby only a final warning was given), respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner as also preferred WPC No.180/2021 before this Court. In the aforesaid petition, this Court, vide order dated 17.2.2023, directed the Commissioner (respondent No.2 herein) to decide the appeal in accordance with law. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, after affording the concerned parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the appeal was allowed by Commissioner vide order dated 23.5.2023. Consequently, the service of the petitioner was terminated vide the impugned order. 8. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which is just and proper and does not warrant any interference, as the petitioner was removed from service after conducting a due enquiry by the respondent authorities. 9. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. 6 10.However, it is made clear that the impugned termination order of the petitioner shall not stand in the way of his future employment or service prospects, as the petitioner’s appointment on the subject post was on contractual basis. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay