1 / 6 2026:CGHC:6890 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8189 of 2025 Nand Kumar Bharatvanshi S/o Late Shivcharan Aged About 42 Years Rojgar Sahayak (Presently Removed), At Gram Panchayat Ghodari, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Ministry Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Office Of The Collectorate, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2/State :Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 3 & 4 Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.02.07 17:29:11 +0530 2 / 6 Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 06/02/2026. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner's case. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quashed the impugned order dated 02/05/2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 4 and kindly pass a suitable direction to the respondent No.4 to reinstate the petitioner on his place of posting as Rojgar Sahayak. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner. An affidavit in support of this petition is filed herewith.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner was appointed on the post of Rojgar Sahayak of Gram Panchayat- Ghodari, Janpad Panchayat Mahasamund, District Mahasamund on 12.03.2014 and since then petitioner was discharging his duties diligently, responsibly with full honesty. Respondent No.3 issued notice on 08.04.2025 asking the petitioner to submit reply within specified time frame vide Annexure P-2. In the show cause notice there was allegation against the petitioner that petitioner is negligent in his duty and further, on the relevant date, petitioner appeared in duty after consuming liquor. Show cause notice was replied by petitioner on very next date and have specifically denied all the allegations made therein. Respondent 3 / 6 authority based on the show cause notice and reply submitted by petitioner has passed order Annexure P-1 terminating services of petitioner. He contended that petitioner was not served with any document along with show cause notice, enabling him in taking appropriate defence. When respondent authority taken step to issue show cause notice alleging grievous/serious allegation against petitioner then it was for the authority to have initiated full fledged enquiry against petitioner wherein petitioner would have an opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses. It is for respondent authority to prove the allegation/charge levelled against petitioner against show cause notice which is missing in this case and therefore order Annexure P-1 proposing major punishment of termination of service of petitioner is to be set aside being in violation of principle of justice. He places reliance upon the decision of this Court in Bineet Kumar Jaiswal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.3140 of 2019 decided on 05.12.2024). 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that action of termination of service of petitioner is taken by respondent No.3 and therefore main contesting party is respondent No.3. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 would vehemently oppose submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that petitioner is not a permanent employee but is working on contract basis as Rojgar Sahayak. She contended that after receiving multiple complaints and in particular complaint that petitioner is negligence in his duty and is also coming in office or work place after consuming liquor and further that in a complaint received by respondent No.3 4 / 6 petitioner is also alleged to be involved in financial irregularity show cause notice was issued to petitioner specifically mentioning the allegation leveled against him. Petitioner thereafter submitted reply to show cause notice and only thereafter decision is taken to terminate service of petitioner and the order is passed on 02.05.2025 Annexure P-1. Order terminating service of petitioner is passed following due procedure of law and hence it does not call for any interference. She however submits that if this Court comes to conclusion that proper procedure for inflicting major punishment is not followed by respondent than liberty may be granted to respondent to pass appropriate order on the allegation against the petitioner following due process of law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petitions. 6. Annexure P-2 is the show cause notice issued by respondent No.3- Chief Executive Officer calling upon the petitioner to show cause on the allegation of negligence in discharging his duties and attending the work place under intoxication. Vide letter dated 09.04.2025 petitioner submitted reply to show-cause notice denying all the allegations mentioned therein. 7. When the allegation is of misconduct, irregularities holding the employee liable and the employee has specifically denied all the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice, the minimum which is to be expected from the authority to prove the allegations levelled against him by conducting enquiry, giving opportunity to defend the charges, cross-examine the witnesses and to produce evidence in his support. Even in the case of a contractual employee, the employer 5 / 6 cannot dispense with the requirement of holding a proper enquiry where the termination is based on allegations of misconduct or results in a stigmatic order. While a contractual appointment may permit termination in terms of the contract, such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in violation of the principles of natural justice. Termination effected without following due process of law is in violation of principles of natural justice, is liable to be set aside. It was for the respondent authority to follow due procedure of law before passing order of termination when order passed by respondents terminating service of petitioner is not simplictor, but is punitive on allegations, not only affecting the present service on which he was posted but it is going to affect the future career prospects also. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Raghupathi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2022) 6 SCC 346 while dealing with the termination of an contractual employee, has observed thus: “14. It could thus be seen that though the communication of the said University dated 12.08.2014 states that the appellant’s contractual period has expired, in the facts of the present case, it would reveal that his services were discontinued on account of the allegation made against him by the Dean of the said University. Since even according to the said University, though the employment was contractual but the employee was entitled to get all the benefits of a regular employee, we find that in the facts of the present case the appellant’s services could not have been terminated without following the principles of natural justice. We therefore find that the present appeal deserves to be allowed on this short ground.” 6 / 6 9. For the foregoing discussions and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that order of termination dated 02.05.2025 passed against the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law being violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, it is set aside. However, respondents will be at liberty to pass an order afresh, if they so desire after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, following due process of law. 10. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen