1 / 7 2026:CGHC:13841 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13978 of 2025 Smt. Purnime Dhruw W/o Shri Kanhai Ram Dhruw Aged About 46 Years Occupation- Rojgar Sahayak (M G N R E G A) At Village Panchayat Nishtiguda Janpad Panchayat- Devbhog, R/o Ward No. 19 Village Fulimuda, Post Nistiguda, Tahsil- Devbhog, District Gariyaband C.G. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Commissioner, M G N R E G A, Vikas Bhawan, 1st Floor, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 3 - The Collector District- Gariyaband C.G. 4 - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband C.G. 5 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Devbhog, District- Gariyaband C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, P.L. For Respondent No. 4 & 5 : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate HON'BLE SHRI PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, JUDGE ORDER ON BOARD 23/03/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. 2 / 7 “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ to quash the impugned termination order dated 11/09/2025 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the Chief Executive Officer, of the of the Janpad Panchayat Devbhog District Gariyaband and declare the same as void and inoperative, in furtherance of justice. 10.2 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the impugned termination order dated 11/09/2025 and reinstate the Petitioner in her service, in the interest of justice. 10.3 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and quash the order dated 10/11/2025 passed by the District Collector Gariyaband, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Any other relief/relief's which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may be granted, in furtherance of justice.” 2. Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Rozgar Sahayak, initially in the year 2007 on contract and since then he is working continuously. The respondent authorities without following due process of law granting opportunity of hearing has passed an order Annexure-P/1 removing the petitioner from service. He also contended that in the order, reasons assigned for removal of petitioner from service is, her involvement in financial irregularities which is perse wrong. In the show cause notice dated 28.07.2025 it is only mentioned that the petitioner has entered the name of her husband and son in the muster roll and made payment of Rs. 5,166/-. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that there is no mention of any provision in the show cause notice, restricting petitioner to engage her family member as labourer for working under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana and if it is a case of respondents that the petitioner has fraudulently withdrawn the amount of Rs. 5,166/- mentioning the name 3 / 7 of family members of petitioner, no such enquiry was conducted. He submits that if removal / termination of the petitioner / employee, even if a contractual employee is made, alleging committed financial irregularities is punitive in nature and therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to conduct a detailed enquiry against the petitioner granting opportunity of hearing and further the opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witness in this regard. In support of his contention he has placed reliance in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of Swati Priyadarshini v. State of M.P. and Others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2139 decided on 22.08.2024 and the judgment passed by this Court in WPS No. 2515 of 2024 (Praveen Goyal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) passed on 11.04.2025 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 3. Counsel for the State would submit that the grievance of the petitioner is against the decision taken by respondent No. 4 and 5. 4. Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and 5 would submit that the order Annexure-P/1 was passed following due process of law. Petitioner was issued show cause notice to which he submitted reply and upon considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, order Annexure-P/1 is passed, therefore, the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is passed without giving opportunity of hearing is not sustainable. She also contended that on the complaint made against the petitioner four member committee was appointed to enquire the allegations headed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, (Revenue) and according to the enquiry report, son and husband of the petitioner has been shown to be a labourer in Muster Roll and a sum of Rs. 5,166/- has been withdrawn against their names. 4 / 7 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused documents enclosed along with the writ petition and reply. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as Rozgar Sahayak on contract basis in the year 2007. Petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 28.07.2025 mentioning that the petitioner has entered the name of her son and husband in the Muster Roll and have withdrawn Rs. 5,166/-. It is also mentioned in the show cause notice that the name of her husband and son has been fraudulently entered. 7. In the aforementioned facts of the case where in show cause notice, it is alleged that husband and son of the petitioner has been fraudulently entered. Whether they have worked and thereafter payment has been disbursed is a fact to be proved, in accordance with law and only thereafter, adverse action like removal could have been taken against the petitioner. The enquiry report which is stated to be submitted by four member committee is placed along with the reply by respondent No. 4 and 5. In the enquiry report it is only mentioned that name of the husband and son of petitioner is found in muster roll, however, there is no further averment that the name of the husband of the petitioner and the son of the petitioner has been fraudulently entered and they have not worked as labourer at any point of time. In the enquiry report submitted by the four member team as also in show cause notice there is no specific allegation against the petitioner that son and husband of the petitioner had never worked under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. In absence of specific allegation and full-fledged enquiry on the allegations, granting opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to examine witness, order of removal in the opinion of this Court, is in violation of principle of natural justice. 5 / 7 8. In the facts of the case, respondents ought to have issued charge- memo, with list of documents and witnesses to be examine in enquiry. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Swati Priyadarshini (supra) has observed thus in Para 34 and 35 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 in the facts and circumstances of the case establish that an enquiry into allegations of serious and grave character of misconduct involving stigma has been made in infraction of the provision of Article 311 … ” “12. It is, therefore, now well settled that where the form of the order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct it is always open to the court before which the order is challenged to go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order. If the court holds that the order though in the form is merely a determination of employment is in reality a cloak for an order of punishment, the court would not be debarred, merely because of the form of the order, in giving effect to the rights conferred by law upon the employee.” punishment and does not attract Article 311(2), as has also been held by this Court in Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1955) 1 SCR 26]. In either of the two abovementioned 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 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 [LR 58 Bom 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 or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of Article 311 must be 6 / 7 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 forfeiture 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 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 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.” (emphasis supplied) 35. We would only be adding to verbosity by multiplying authorities. In view of the above dictum, it is clear that the Respondents did not comply with Clause 4 – either the first part or the second part thereof. The order dated 30.03.2013 does visit the appellant with evil consequences and would create hurdles for her re further employment.” 7 / 7 9. In the facts of the case where removal of petitioner is punitive, termination is on the alleged misconduct, the petitioner visited with civil consequences, concerned authorities were required to conduct full- fledged enquiry giving opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, which has not been done and therefore the order Annexure- P/1 is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as such is not sustainable. Accordingly, order Annexure-P/1 is quashed. Consequence to follow. Respondent will be at liberty to take decision against petitioner following due process of law, if they so desire. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Saurabh JUDGE