1 CGHC010129582025 2026:CGHC:42751 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2519 of 2025 Hemlata Sinha D/o Aanand Ram Sinha Aged About 35 Years Was Working As Rojgar Sahayak At Gram Panchayat- Hathidob, Janpad Panchayat Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Vikas Bhawan Third Floor Sector- 9, North Block, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Bemetara District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Programme Officer Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Project, Janpad Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For Resp/State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, PL For Resp. No. 4 & 5 : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.10.01 17:57:34 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 01/10/2026 1. The Petitioner was appointed as Rozgar Sahayak on contractual basis on 27/01/2017 and was posted at Gram Panchayat Hathidob, Janpad Panchayat Saja, District Bemetara. Subsequently, his/her period of service was extended from time to time. 2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the order dated 15/07/2024 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Saja, District Bemetara, whereby the Petitioner has been discontinued/terminated from service. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that on 13/05/2024, a complaint was made by the villagers against the Sarpanch, Secretary, Technical Assistant as well as the Petitioner alleging certain irregularities. On the basis of the said complaint, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner and she submitted her reply denying the allegations. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter an enquiry was conducted by the Committee behind the back of the Petitioner and the Committee found certain irregularities involving an amount of Rs.8,26,504/- against the Sarpanch, Secretary, Technical Assistant as well as the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that on the basis of the said enquiry, an order dated 26/06/2024 was passed whereby punishment of Rs.1,000/- was imposed and recovery of the alleged amount was directed. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 15/07/2024 has been passed discontinuing/terminating the services of the Petitioner. Learned counsel submits that though the Petitioner had submitted her reply to the show cause notice, neither the relevant material/documents were supplied to her nor was 3 she afforded proper opportunity of hearing in the enquiry. It is further submitted that the impugned order is founded upon the allegations of irregularity and misconduct and is therefore stigmatic in nature. Before terminating the services of a contractual employee on such allegations, the respondents were required to conduct proper enquiry and afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, whereas the same has not been done in the present case. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court passed in WPS No. 8212/2023 decided on 03.01.2023, and submits that the termination of a contractual employee, if founded upon allegations and is stigmatic, cannot be passed without following the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel for the State as well as the respondents submits that the Petitioner was a contractual employee and that sufficient opportunity was afforded to her by issuing a show cause notice. It is submitted that the complaint was enquired into by the Committee and the allegations regarding irregularities were found against the Petitioner. Therefore, the authority has rightly passed the impugned order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. The authority while passing the impugned order has relied upon the complaint and the enquiry conducted in respect of the allegations of irregularity. Though the Petitioner was issued a show cause notice and submitted her reply, however, it appears that the Petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity in the enquiry and the relevant material/documents relied 4 upon against her were not supplied. Further, the impugned order dated 15/07/2024 has been passed on the basis of the allegations and the enquiry conducted against the Petitioner. 7. 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 that case also, this Court also taken the view that in order to pass a stigmatic or punitive order, the concerned authorities are required to hold proper enquiry after giving due opportunity of hearing to the delinquent/employee. 8. 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 herein-above, the impugned order dated 15/07/2024 is hereby quashed. The Petitioner is entitled for all the benefits following from quashment of the impugned order dated 15/07/2024. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to hold proper enquiry, if so advised. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul