1 CGHC010154212025 2026:CGHC:36369 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2775 of 2025 1 - Uttra Kumar Gond S/o Late Amrit Lal Gond Aged About 54 Years Working As Rojgar Sahayak At Gram Panchayat- Kosmanda, Janpad Panchayat Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Vikas Bhawan Third Floor Sector 9, North Block, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Baloda, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 5 - Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayat Janjgir-Champa District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6 - Programme Officer Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Project, Janpad Panchayat- Baloda, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Shahil Singh, Panel Lawyer AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.08.14 18:38:41 +0530 2 For Respondents No.4 : Ms. Priyanka Rai Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Aniket Verma, ADvocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 14/08/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned termination order dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby his service has been terminated from the post of Rojgar Sahayak. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was substantively holding the post of Rojgar Sahayak and was posted at Gram Panchayat-Kosmanda in Janpad Panchayat Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, has challenged the impugned termination order dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that the same has been passed without conducting any departmental enquiry, without affording any opportunity of hearing and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the applicable service rules governing the petitioner's appointment. He further submits that after his termination, the petitioner submitted his grievance before the respondents authorities, but the same has not been considered. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned termination order be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 3 3. Learned counsel for the State as well as respondents No. 4 & 5 submits that the concerned respondent authority has afforded sufficient opportunity to the petitioner by giving a show cause notice regarding his unethical and illegal act and sought explanation from him. Hence, there is no need to conduct any Departmental Enquiry. The conduct of the petitioner was found proved and therefore, the respondent No.4/Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, has passed the order impugned as such there is no illegality and infirmity in the order impugned. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the writ petition. 5. From perusal of the record, it appears that although the respondents contend that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, the impugned order does not disclose any consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner nor does it record any reasons for rejecting the same. Further perusal of the impugned order reveals that the services of the petitioner have been terminated by extending the benefit of one month's salary, and the said order has been passed solely after issuance of a show cause notice, without conducting any departmental enquiry or following the procedure prescribed under law. The impugned order is a non-speaking and stigmatic order, as it records findings regarding the alleged unethical and illegal conduct of the petitioner without any proper adjudication. In the absence of adherence to the principles of natural justice and the 4 prescribed procedure, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139 decided on 22.08.2024, in which the ratio laid down by the Apex Court is to the fact that even if for contractual appointment, if any stigmatic order is to be passed, it is to be passed after holding proper enquiry and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned delinquent/employee. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 4969/2015 in the matter of Digambar Chandrakar vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others decided on 22.08.2024 and in the said case also, this Court of the view that in order to pass a stigmatic or cumulative order, the concerned authorities are required to hold a departmental enquiry after giving due opportunity of hearing to delinquent/ employee. 7. Taking into consideration of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court and for the reasons and discussions made here-in-above, the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all the benefits following from quashment of impugned order. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate order afresh, if so advised, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5 8. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicate above. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Amardeep