1 2026:CGHC:22515 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8600 of 2022 1 - Amit Kumar Khare S/o Bhagat Ram Khare Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bundeli Khurud Gram Panchayat, Domhatola Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary , Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Panchayat And Gramin Vikas , Manrega Scheme, Indrawati Bhawan , Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Commissioner Manrega Vikas Bhawan , 3rd Floor, Sector 19, North Block Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. K.N. Nande, Advocate. For State : Mr. Siddharth Ojha, P.L. For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 13.5.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the order dated 03/10/2022 passed by the Respondent No. 3 (Annexure p-1). 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner back to his services. 10.3 Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court.” 2) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Rojgar Sahayak under Gram Panchayat, Domhatola, Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon vide order dated 23.2.2007. He worked there for 15 years and according to the pleadings made in the writ petition, there were no complaints against him. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.3.2021 regarding his carelessness in work, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 6.4.2021. Subsequently, during the period of COVID-19 out-bust, one-month notice was issued to the petitioner and after the expiry of one month, his services were terminated w.e.f. 7.2.2022. The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing the present petition. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the show-cause notice dated 27.3.2021 contained various 3 allegations against the petitioner and those allegations were duly denied by the petitioner in his reply dated 6.4.2021. He would contend that the foundation of the order terminating the services of the petitioner was stigmatic; therefore, the respondent authorities were under obligation to conduct an enquiry. He would submit that subsequent show-cause notices were never served upon the petitioner and thus, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. He would pray that the order Annexure-P/7 dated 7.1.2022 be quashed. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the subject matter of show-cause notice dated 27.3.2021 and subsequent notice terminating the services of the petitioner dated 7.1.2022 are entirely different. They would submit that the services of the petitioner were terminated strictly in accordance with Rule 11(5) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 (for short ‘Rules 2012’). They would submit that the order passed by respondent No.6 is neither stigmatic nor punitive and the order of termination of services is simpliciter, therefore, there was no need for the respondent authorities to conduct an enquiry or afford an opportunity of hearing. They would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 4 6) Perusal of the show-cause notice dated 27.3.2021 would show that the petitioner did not participate in the meetings held on 25.7.2020, 24.11.2020 and 15.12.2020 but the allegations were duly denied by the petitioner in his reply dated 6.4.2021 and thereafter, no action was taken. Thus, it can be concluded that the respondent authorities were satisfied with the reply filed by the petitioner to the show-cause notice dated 27.3.2021. Subsequently, respondent No.6 issued a one-month advance notice before terminating the services of the petitioner. 7) Perusal of the said order would make it clear that it is neither punitive nor stigmatic and the services of the petitioner have been terminated simpliciter. 8) Rule 11(5) of Rules, 2012 reads as under: “11(5) Either of both the parties may terminate the contact appointment during the period of contract appointment by giving one month's notice in advance or paying one month's salary in its place.” 9) Taking into consideration the fact that the order dated 7.1.2022 is neither stigmatic nor punitive, but rather the services of the petitioner have been terminated simpliciter strictly in accordance with Rule 11 (5) of the Rules, 2012, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi