1 / 5 CGHC010349062025 2026:CGHC:30446 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9490 of 2025 Premlal Ogare S/o Late Darogaram Ogare Aged About 43 Years Working As Rojgar Sahayak Gram Panchayat Atarmara, Block - Chhura, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Commissioner MANREGA, Vikas Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Raipur Division Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector and District Program Coordinator District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Janpad Panchayat, Chhura, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Purunendra Khichariya, Advocate For State/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 17/07/2026 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.07.17 18:19:40 +0530 2 / 5 1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 02/06/2025 whereby he has been removed from the post of Rajgar Sahayak, Janpad Panchayat, Chhura, Gram Panchayat Atarmara, by Respondent No.4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that: (a) the petitioner was appointed as Rojgar Sahayak on contractual basis and had been continuously discharging his duties since January, 2013. During the entire period of service extending over nearly twelve years, there was never any adverse remark, disciplinary proceeding or criminal case against him. He would next submit that the impugned action has been taken solely on the basis of a complaint alleging demand of illegal gratification from one Jagat Ram Sinha in relation to benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. Pursuant thereto, a show cause notice dated 01.06.2025 was issued, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 02.06.2025 denying all allegations. However, without considering the explanation in its proper perspective, the respondent No.4 proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 removing the petitioner from service. (b) He would next submit that no regular departmental enquiry was conducted before passing the impugned order as per the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 3 / 5 1966 and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend himself by examining witnesses or rebutting the allegations. The action, therefore, is stated to be violative of the principles of natural justice. He would next submit that the allegations are false, baseless and motivated and the respondents have acted mechanically without undertaking any proper verification, therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 be quashed and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was not a regular Government servant but was engaged purely on a contractual basis as Rojgar Sahayak, and his engagement was governed by the terms and conditions of the contract as well as the applicable scheme guidelines. She would next submit that after the enquiry report was received, a show cause notice dated 01.06.2025 was issued to the petitioner, who submitted his reply on 02.06.2025. The competent authority considered both the enquiry report as well as the petitioner's explanation and, being dissatisfied with the same, passed the order dated 02.06.2025 terminating the petitioner's contractual engagement. Since the petitioner was merely a contractual employee, the competent authority was well within its jurisdiction to discontinue his contractual engagement upon consideration of the fact-finding enquiry and his explanation. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4 / 5 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. On the previous date of hearing, this Court specifically directed the respondents to clarify whether any fact finding enquiry had been conducted prior to passing the order removing the petitioner from service. Pursuant thereto, learned State counsel has produced the fact- finding enquiry report dated 30.05.2025, which has been taken on record. The said report discloses that a preliminary enquiry into the complaint made against the petitioner was undertaken by the competent authority before any adverse action was taken. The record further reveals that on the basis of the said enquiry report, a show cause notice dated 01.06.2025 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 02.06.2025, which was considered by the competent authority before passing the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 terminating his contractual engagement. 6. The contention of the petitioner that no departmental enquiry was conducted, the said submission cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as a contractual Rojgar Sahayak and was not holding a regular civil post. Consequently, the safeguards available to a regular Government servant under the CCA Rules are not automatically attracted to a contractual engagement unless specifically provided under the governing terms and conditions. 7. The documents now placed on record clearly establish that the respondents did not act solely on the basis of an unverified complaint. A 5 / 5 fact-finding enquiry preceded the issuance of the show cause notice; the petitioner was furnished an opportunity to explain the allegations; his reply was considered; and only thereafter was the impugned order passed. Thus, the requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity before taking action against the petitioner stands substantially complied with. 8. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is confined to examining the decision-making process and not to re- appreciating the sufficiency or correctness of the factual conclusions recorded by the competent authority. No material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the enquiry was actuated by mala fides, suffered from procedural illegality, or that the impugned order is so arbitrary or perverse as to warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 02.06.2025. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu