1 2026:CGHC:1724 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8084 of 2018 1 - Jai Prakash Vaishnav S/o Shri Mohandas Vaishnav Aged About 33 Years Health Coordinator (Panchayat), Lailunga, R/o Village - Mohanpur, Post Jhagarpur, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Health Services, Indrawati Bhavan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Executive Director State Health Resource Centre, State Health Training Centre Building Kalibadi, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Medical Officer Block Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondents 1, 2, 4 & 5/State : Shri Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Poonam Gilurkar, Advocate 2 ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 12/01/2026 Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition - i. That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner’s case. ii. That the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to quash the impugned order dated 20/10/2018 (Ann.P/1) passed by the Respondent No.3 and direct the Respondent authority to consider of reinstatement of service of the petitioner on the post of Health Coordinator (Panchayat), Block Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh from 31.01.2018. ii. Any other order that the Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. iv. That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Health Coordinator (Panchayat) on 17/06/2013 by respondent No.3 and since then, he continued to work under the respondent / department and was posted in block-Lailunga, District-Raigarh. On 23/12/2017, respondent No.3 issued order regarding removal of the petitioner from the Mitanin programme. The allegation against the petitioner was made that a complaint was made in respect of recovery of amount from the village health committee. The enquiry was held behind the back of the petitioner and it is alleged that the allegations found proved and therefore, he was removed from the work of Mitanin. 3. The petitioner earlier preferred a writ petition i.e. WPS No.6066/2018 against the order of termination which was disposed off by this Court vide its order dated 14/09/2018 permitting the petitioner to make representation. Later on, the petitioner submitted representation to respondent No.2 and requested to reinstate the service on the ground that the allegation made against the petitioner was not correct and he did not take any amount from the villagers, but by the impugned order, petitioner’s representation was rejected. It is further submitted 3 that no opportunity was granted and no notice was issued regarding allegation made against him. As the impugned order is stigmatic one, the respondent was obliged to conduct an enquiry giving opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. He submits that identical issue had come up before this Court in bunch of petitions, one of them is WPS No.196/2025 (Horilal Agrawani vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.). This Court vide its order dated 10/03/2025 allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order of removal from service granting liberty to the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry if so advised. He further submits that the order passed in WPS No.196/2025 squarely covers the case of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order may be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the above submission and submits that allegations were leveled against the petitioner with regard to taking money from the villagers and after due enquiry, the impugned order was passed. The representation was duly considered and as no merit was found, vide impugned order, the same has been dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the submission of learned State counsel. She submits that on 12/12/2025, Incharge Executive/ respondent No.3 appeared in person and stated that the functions of State Health Resource Centre has been taken over by the National Health Mission. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Perusal of the record does not indicate as to whether detailed enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. Even if arguendo, if the enquiry is conducted, for the sake of argument, it appears that any opportunity of hearing was granted against the petitioner. No document in that regard has been placed on record. On perusal of order dated 11/03/2025 passed in WPS No.196/2025, it appears that almost similarly situated persons were granted relief by this Court. It appears that the case of the petitioner is covered by the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid case. Thus, in the light of above, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside reserving liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh enquiry in accordance with the provisions of circular dated 24/09/2011 as directed in WPS No.196/2025. 4 8. With the aforesaid observation / direction, this petition is finally disposed off. No order as to costs. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2026.01.15 15:17:59 +0530