1 2026:CGHC:5304 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4258 of 2019 1 - Hemant Kumar Soni S/o Late Shri Chandrika Prasad Soni Aged About 32 Years Posted As Accountant District Panchayat Gariyaband, R/o Bajrang Chowk, Ward No. 14, Post- Tahsil Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Social Welfare, Mahanadi Bhavan, Village- Rakhi, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., 2 - Commissioner Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Indravati Bhavan, New Raipur, Village Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., 3 - The Collector And District Program Coordinator Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh., 4 - Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh., 5 - Kamal Singh Nirmalkar S/o Shri Murharam Nirmalker R/o Village Post Bindranvagadh, Tahsil And District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh Pin- 493889, ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri YogeshPandey, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Shahil Singh, PL. For Respondent No.4 : Shri AN Bhakta, Advocate. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.01.31 17:00:14 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal , J Order On Board 30/01/2026 : 1. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 15.12.2017 passed by respondent No.4 by which the petitioner was removed from the post of Accountant. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Accountant on contractual basis under the MGNREGA scheme. However, his services were dispensed with vide order dated 15.12.2017 holding that his response to the show cause notice is not satisfactory. However, the said order dated 15.12.2017 is not a stigmatic order. Thereafter in the fresh recruitment process, the petitioner had applied and participated, however, he was found ineligible on the ground that earlier his services were terminated on 15.12.2017. As such, the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking declaration that the order dated 15.12.2017 is non-stigmatic. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 is non-stigmatic, as the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with by giving one month’s salary by the respondents and, hence the impugned order cannot be said to be stigmatic. On such score, it was prayed that the petitioner may not be treated as unqualified for the new vacancy. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.4 would support the impugned order. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. In the case at hand, by order dated 15.12.2017 (Annexure-P/5) services of the petitioner have been dispensed with in accordance with para- 11 (5) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2012. The said para-11(5) reads as under:- “11. Period of Appointment.- xxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (5) Either of both the parties may terminate the contract appointment during the period of contract appointment by giving one month’s notice in advance or paying one month’s salary in its place.” 7. Careful perusal of the above para-11 (5) would show that either of both the parties may terminate the contract appointment during the period of contract appointment by giving one month’s notice in advance or paying one month’s salary in its place. However, the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 would simply state that the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice was not satisfactory and accordingly, his services were dispensed with. It nowhere contemplates that it was a stigmatic, rather it appears that it was a termination simplicitor. Therefore, it cannot be held that the impugned order is a stigmatic. However, in the subsequent appointment process, the petitioner was found ineligible on the basis of impugned order dated 15.12.2017, which has already been held to be non-stigmatic as above. 4 8. For the foregoing, it is directed that the case of the petitioner shall be considered in the future recruitment process, as the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 is non-stigmatic, as held above. However, it is made clear that the appointment of respondent No.5 is not being set aside, as the petitioner has not challenged the objection list (Annexure-P/11), by which he was declared unqualified. In the circumstances, it is further directed that in future, the case of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the impugned order dated 15.12.2017, which is non-stigmatic. 9. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve