1 2026:CGHC:20209 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4259 of 2021 • Smt. Purnima Sahu W/o Shri Pitambar Sahu Aged About 31 Years Working As Rojgar Sahayak At Gram Panchayat - Mohandi, Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur, Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Program Officer - Abhanpur, Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the present case. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.04.30 17:08:44 +0530 -2- 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may please to quash the impugned order dated 10.03.2021 (ANNEXURE P-1) Passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.). 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, who was posted as Rojgar Sahayak under Gram Panchayat, Mohandi in Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) was removed from services vide order dated 10.03.2021 by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Commissioner MGNREGA vide its communication dated 28.09.2018 amended the procedure for removal of Rojgar Sahayak. He would further submit that according to said communication, the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, if receives a complaint against a Rojgar Sahayak, he will conduct an inquiry and will submit its report before the Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, who will be disciplinary authority to inflict penalty. He would contend that in the present case, the inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Internal Accounts Accounts Audit & Taxation Officer, Zila Panchayat Abhanpur, Sub-Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Abhanpur, Sub-Divisional Officer, RES Sub-Division Abhanpur. He would further contend that as the inquiry was conducted contrary to the communication dated 28.09.2018, the order dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure P/1) is bad in law. 3 4. On the other hand, Ms. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and 4 would oppose submissions. She would submit that a show cause notice was issued and thereafter, inquiry was conducted. He would further submit that the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat delegated power to the Assistant Internal Accounts Accounts Audit and Taxation Officer, Zila Panchayat Abhanpur, Sub- Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Abhanpur, Sub-Divisional Officer, RES Sub-Division Abhanpur vide order dated 07.12.2020 to conduct an inquiry and pursuant to said order, inquiry was conducted. She would contend that in the inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and therefore, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat exercising power according to communication dated 28.09.2018 inflicted penalty. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. It is argued by Ms. Jain that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands as in the writ petition, it is nowhere stated that a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and reply was filed. In the present case, there is violation of procedure prescribed to inflict penalty or major penalty on Rojgar Sahayak. It is true that a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and a reply was filed. 7. An FIR was registered on 28.01.2002 against the petitioner in which petitioner was acquitted vide acquittal order dated 11.09.2021. 8. A perusal of the communication dated 28.09.2018 would make it clear that when complaint with regard to financial irregularities against Rojgar -4- Sahahyak is received by the Chief Executive Officer, he shall conduct an inquiry and thereafter, forward it report to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat shall issue a show cause notice to such Rojgar Sahayak and provide an opportunity of hearing. The relevant part of the communication dated 28.09.2018 is reproduced herein below : " विषयांतर्ग त संदर्भि त पत्र के माध्यांमा सं माहात्मा र्गधी राष्ट्रीयां ग्रामाण राजर्गरा र्गराटी यांजना अंतर्ग त ग्रामा राजर्गरा संहायांके# के$ यांग्यांत, विनायां&क्ति(त ए पद संमाप्ति+त के संबंधी मा# विनाद-श दिदयां र्गयां हा0। ग्रामा राजर्गरा संहायांके# के पद सं प2थके केराना के संबंधी मा# पत्र के$ के वि4के 13 मा# विनाम्नाना&संरा संशधीना विकेयां जत हा0- 1. ग्रामा राजर्गरा संहायांके के विरुद्ध अंविनायांमिमातत / केत व्य के प्रमित लापराहा के$ जनाकेरा< प्र+त हाना परा मा&ख्यां केयां पलाना अंमिधीकेरा< जनापद पचायांत द्वारा जचा के$ जर्ग। जचा मा# दष पयां जना परा जचा प्रमितदना मा&ख्यां केयां पलाना अंमिधीकेरा< जिजला पचायांत के प्रविषत के$ जयांर्ग। 2. मा&ख्यां केयां पलाना अंमिधीकेरा<, जिजला पचायांत द्वारा संबंमिधीत ग्रामा राजर्गरा संहायांके के उ(त प्रकेराण के संबंधी मा# केराण बंतओं# संCचाना जरा< केरा उन्हा अंपना पक्ष राखना के अंसंरा प्रदना विकेयां जर्ग। 3. मा&ख्यां केयां पलाना अंमिधीकेरा< जिजला पचायांत द्वारा के$ र्गई सं&नाई मा# दष पयां जना परा जिजला केयां क्रमा संमान्यांके/ केला(टीरा सं अंना&मादना उपरात मा&ख्यां केयां पलाना अंमिधीकेरा< जनापद पचायांत द्वारा पद सं प2थके केराना के$ केयां हा के$ जर्ग।" 9. In the present case, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat after receipt of complaint against the petitioner, constituted a team to conduct an inquiry. 10.It is a well-settled principle of law that when the authority is notified or conferred with the power to conduct an inquiry, such power cannot be sub-delegated. 11.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, order dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be 5 entitled for reinstatement in service forthwith, without back wages. The respondent No.3 would be at liberty to initiate a fresh inquiry strictly in accordance with communication dated 30.07.2014 and 28.09.2018, if so advised. 12.With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant