Chattisgarh High Court
Anil Kumar Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 August, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:40899
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 953 of 2023
1 - Anil Kumar Nishad S/o Shri Ramji Nishad Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
Themakhurd Post Themakhurd Tehsil Dondi District Balod, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development
Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Collector Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Dondi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate
For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate
For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate
(Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)
Order on Board
13/08/2025
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28/11/2022 passed by
the Collector, Balod, which upheld an earlier order dated 16/09/2022
removing the petitioner from service on grounds of financial
irregularities. The removal was based on allegations of misconduct
during service. The petitioner challenged this decision by filing an
appeal before the Collector. However, the appeal was dismissed on the
ground of non-maintainability. As a result, the petitioner is left without a
remedy at the departmental level. The present petition is thus filed
Digitally challenging the legality of these orders seeking the following reliefs:
signed by
SHAYNA
KADRI
“10.1 That this Hon’ble court may kindly be
2pleased to set aside the order dated
28/11/2022 arising out of order dated
16/09/2022.
10.2 That any other relief which this Hon’ble
Court deems fit and proper may also be
granted in favour of the petitioner
safeguarding his interest.”
2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as
a Rojgaar Assistant on a regular post for the Gram Panchayat on
31/08/2009. Subsequently, certain villagers lodged complaints against
the petitioner, alleging financial irregularities, particularly related to the
MNREGA scheme. It was claimed that the petitioner entered names
into records for compost formation work that was never actually
conducted. A Janpad-level enquiry was initiated and concluded that the
petitioner had committed irregularities in violation of MNREGA
guidelines. Based on the enquiry report, the Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), District Panchayat Balod, issued a show cause notice dated
31/03/2022, asking the petitioner to respond within three days, failing
which ex-parte action would be taken under the Chhattisgarh Civil
Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012. The petitioner
submitted a detailed reply on 04/04/2022, denying all allegations and
asserting that he was neither responsible for the irregularities nor
received any monetary benefit. He claimed that signatures of witnesses
were obtained on blank papers and requested a fair enquiry. Despite
his response, on 16/09/2022, the CEO, District Panchayat Balod,
directed the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Dondi, to dismiss the petitioner
from service. The dismissal order was passed the same day by the
CEO, Janpad Panchayat Dondi. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an
appeal under Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act before
3
the Collector, Balod, asserting that the dismissal was done without a
proper enquiry, without providing an opportunity of hearing, and in
violation of natural justice. However, the Collector dismissed the appeal
as non-maintainable, citing that the Chhattisgarh Civil Services
(Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012 do not provide for an appeal in
cases of dismissal from contractual service. The petitioner contends
that the Collector failed to consider the substantive grounds raised in
the appeal and dismissed it merely on technicalities. He also argues
that the dismissal was effected without cross-examination of witnesses
or affording proper defence. Statements of witnesses Bihari Ram,
Santosh Kumar, and Unni Bai support the version of petitioner.
Additionally, a circular dated 16/08/2022 issued by the Madhya
Pradesh State Rojgaar Guarantee Parishad provides that instead of
dismissal, actions like warnings, “No Work No Pay”, or withholding of
honorarium should be considered for Rojgaar Sahayaks. In a similar
matter, this Court had held in WPS No. 9389/2019 that a revision
before the Commissioner is a statutory alternative remedy and must be
decided within 90 days.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order dated
28/11/2022, arising out of the termination order dated 16/09/2022, is
arbitrary, unconstitutional, and illegal, and hence deserves to be set
aside by this Hon’ble Court. The termination has been carried out in
gross violation of the principles of natural justice, without affording the
petitioner a proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing. It is further
submitted that the order of termination passed by the Chief Executive
Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dondi, is based merely on allegations and
without any substantive inquiry or verification. No opportunity was
4
given to the petitioner to defend himself effectively or to cross-examine
the witnesses whose statements were allegedly relied upon. Such
denial of fair procedure makes the action unsustainable in law. The
petitioner, who has been serving since his appointment on 31/08/2009,
had an unblemished record until the present set of vague and
unsubstantiated allegations surfaced. Despite this, neither the CEO nor
the Collector gave due consideration to the consistent denial of the
allegations made by petitioner and the documents placed on record to
support his innocence. It is also submitted that the petitioner had duly
filed a detailed reply before the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Dondi,
denying all the charges and requesting a fair enquiry. He reiterated
these points before the Collector in his appeal. However, the Collector
dismissed the appeal solely on the technical ground that contractual
employees have no right to appeal under the Chhattisgarh Civil
Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012, without examining the
merits of the case, rendering the dismissal arbitrary and perverse.
Moreover, it is argued that both the CEO and the Collector failed to
examine the credibility of the allegations through proper verification or
examination of witnesses. A decision based solely on accusations,
without due process, cannot stand in the eyes of law. The petitioner
had also submitted supporting documents which negate the allegations
and establish his version of events, yet these were completely
overlooked. Therefore, in light of the clear procedural lapses, denial of
natural justice, and failure to consider relevant material, it is prayed that
the impugned orders be quashed and the petitioner be reinstated in
service with all consequential benefits.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel for
5
respondent No. 3 opposes the submission made by learned counsel for
petitioner and jointly submit that the petitioner was serving as a
Rojgaar Assistant on a contractual basis, and his service was governed
by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules,
2012. Upon receiving complaints of financial irregularities under
MNREGA, a proper enquiry was conducted at the Janpad level, and
the allegations were found to be true. It is further submitted that a
show cause notice was duly issued to the petitioner, to which he
responded, but his explanation was found unsatisfactory. Thereafter,
following the procedure laid down in the applicable rules, the
competent authority passed the order of termination. Since the
petitioner was a contractual employee, there is no statutory right of
appeal under the said Rules, and the Collector rightly dismissed the
appeal as non-maintainable. Hence, the action taken by the authorities
is legal, justified, and in accordance with the rules governing
contractual employment.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also
perused documents annexed along with the record.
6. Considering the entire aspect of the matter and further considering the
order passed by this Court in WPS No. 8212 of 2023 as also in WPS
No. 8458 of 2024, in which a detail discussion was made while
considering the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Swati Priaydarshani v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. reported
in 2024 SCC Online SC 2139 decided on 22.08.2024 in which the ratio
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is to the effect that even in
case of contractual appointment, if any stigmatic order is to be passed,
it may be passed only after holding proper enquiry and after giving due
6
opportunity of hearing to the concerned delinquent/employee. The Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 4969/2015 (Digambar
Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on
22.08.2024 held 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. The view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swati
Priyadarshini (supra) goes to show that before passing any stigmatic
order for removal of any employee from service, a departmental
enquiry is required to be done, which has not been done in this case. In
para 34 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
under:-
“34. It is profitable to refer to what five
learned Judges of this Court laid down in
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India,
1957 SCC OnLine SC 5:
“28. The position may, therefore, be
summed up as follows: Any and every
termination of service is not a
dismissal, removal or reduction in
rank. A termination of service brought
about by the exercise of a contractual
right is not per se dismissal or
removal, as has been held by this
Court in Satish Chander Anand v.
Union of India [(1953) 1 SCC 420:
1953 SCR 655]. Likewise the
termination of service by compulsory
retirement in terms of a specific rule
regulating the conditions of service is
not tantamount to the infliction of a
punishment and does not attract
Article 311(2), as has also been held
by this Court in Shyam Lal v. State of
Uttar Pradesh [(1954) 1 SCC 572:
(1955) 1 SCR 26]. In either of the two
above mentioned cases the
termination of the service did not carry
7with it the penal consequences of loss
of pay, or allowances under Rule 52 of
the Fundamental Rules. It is true that
the misconduct, negligence,
inefficiency or other disqualification
may be the motive or the inducing
factor which influences the
Government to take action under the
terms of the contract of employment
or the specific service rule,
nevertheless, if a right exists, under
the contract or the rules, to terminate
the service the motive operating on
the mind of the Government is, as
Chagla, C.J., has said in Shrinivas
Ganesh v. Union of India, [58 Bom LR
673: AIR 1956 Bom 455] wholly
irrelevant. In short, if the termination
of service is founded on the right
flowing from contract or the service
rules then, prima facie, the
termination is not a punishment and
carries with it no evil consequences
and so Article 311 is not attracted. But
even if the Government has. by
contract or under the rules, the right to
terminate the employment without
going through the procedure
prescribed for inflicting the
punishment of dismissal or removal or
reduction in rank, the Government
may, nevertheless, choose to punish
the servant and if the termination of
service is sought to be founded on
misconduct, negligence, inefficiency
other disqualification, then it is or a
punishment and the requirements of
Article 311 must be complied with. As
already stated if the servant has got a
right to continue in the post, then,
unless the contract of employment or
the rules provide to the contrary, his
services cannot be terminated
otherwise than for misconduct,
negligence, inefficiency or other good
and sufficient cause. A termination of
the service of such a servant on such
8grounds must be a punishment and,
therefore, a dismissal or removal
within Article 311, for it operates as a
forefeiture of his right and he is visited
with the evil consequences of loss of
pay and allowances. It puts an
indelible stigma on the officer affecting
his future career. A reduction in rank
likewise may be by way of
punishment or it may be an innocuous
thing. If the government servant has a
right to a particular rank, then the very
reduction from that rank will operate
as a penalty, for he will then lose the
emoluments and privileges of that
rank. If, however, he has no right to
the particular rank, his reduction from
an officiating higher rank to his
substantive lower rank will not
ordinarily be a punishment. But the
mere fact that the servant has no title
to the post or the rank and the
Government has, by contract, express
or implied, or under the rules, the right
to reduce him to a lower post does not
mean that an order of reduction of a
servant to a lower post or rank cannot
in any circumstances be a
punishment. The real test for
determining whether the reduction in
such cases is or is not by way of
punishment is to find out if the order
for the reduction also visits the
servant with any penal consequences.
Thus if the order entails or provides
for the forfeiture of his pay or
allowances or the loss of his seniority
in his substantive rank or the
stoppage or postponement of his
future chances of promotion, then that
circumstance may indicate that
although in form the Government had
purported to exercise its right to
terminate the employment or to
reduce the servant to a lower rank
under the terms of the contract of
employment or under the rules, in
9
truth and reality the Government has
terminated the employment as and by
way of penalty The use of the
expression “terminate” or “discharge”
is not conclusive. In spite of the use of
such innocuous expressions, the
court has to apply the two tests
mentioned above, namely, (1) whether
the servant had a right to the post or
the rank, or (2) whether he has been
visited with evil consequences of the
kind hereinbefore referred to? If the
case satisfies either of the two tests
then it must be held that the servant
has been punished and the
termination of his service must be
taken as a dismissal or removal from
service or the reversion to his
substantive rank must be regarded as
a reduction in rank and if the
requirements of the rules and Article
311, which give protection to
government servant have not been
complied with, the termination of the
service or the reduction in rank must
be held to be wrongful and in violation
of the constitutional right of the
servant.”
8. Reverting back to the present matter, the petitioner is aggrieved by the
impugned orders dated 16/09/2022 and 28/11/2022, whereby he was
removed from service on the ground of alleged financial irregularities.
The service of petitioner being contractual in nature does not exempt
the authorities from following the principles of natural justice and due
process before passing any stigmatic order.
9. It is apparent from the records that the order of dismissal was passed
without conducting any proper departmental enquiry or affording the
petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The petitioner had
denied the allegations through a detailed reply and had sought a fair
inquiry. However, these submissions were not duly considered by the
10
authorities. Instead, the order of termination was passed merely on the
basis of allegations and the findings of an enquiry report which itself
appears to have lacked procedural fairness. The impugned orders are
therefore found to be illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of natural
justice. Without conducting any departmental enquiry or affording a fair
hearing, the authorities could not have passed the dismissal order.
10. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 16/09/2022 and 28/11/2022
are quashed. The concerned authorities are directed to hold a proper
enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner, providing him full
opportunity of hearing and fair trial. After completing such enquiry in a
fair and just manner, the authorities may pass an appropriate order in
accordance with law.
11. This petition is allowed to the above extent.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
JUDGE
Shayna
[ad_1]
Source link