Chattisgarh High Court
Nutan Bhensle vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 August, 2025
1
SMT
NIRMALA
RAO
2025:CGHC:41420
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6651 of 2021
1 - Nutan Bhensle D/o Vishnu Lal Bhensle, Aged About 28 Years Technical
Assistant, Jila Panchayat District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Mahanadi Bhawan Atal
Nagar, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Ceo Jila Panchayat District Balod (Chhattisgarh), District : Balod,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Ceo Janpad Panchayat District Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
4 - Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Jungera Village Jungera, District Balod
Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri T.K. Jha, Advocate.
For Respondent/ State : Shri Shubham Bajpayee, P.L.
For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate.
——————————————————————————————————-
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
18.08.2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:-
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for
the entire records relating to this case.
2
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the
petition and set aside the termination order dated 15.11.2021
ΑΝΝEXURE P/6 interest of justice.
10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper together with cost of the petition.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was
appointed to the post of Technical Assistant on a contract basis under
respondent No.3 vide order dated 4.12.2015 for a period of one year.
He would contend that the services of the petitioner were extended
from time to time. He would further submit that the Chief Executive
Officer (CEO), Zila Panchayat, Balod, issued a show-cause notice
dated 14.7.2021 to the petitioner, making an allegation that during the
inspection of the Central Team, it was found that a direction of the
under-construction road was changed without the prior approval of the
Superior Authorities. He would also submit that the petitioner filed a
reply to the show-cause notice wherein it was stated that the direction
of the road was changed pursuant to the resolutions passed by the
Gram Panchayat dated 29.1.2021 and 13.3.2021. He would further
contend that, though an enquiry was conducted by respondent No. 2,
the petitioner was not afforded the proper opportunity of hearing. He
would also contend that on account of irregularities, the services of the
petitioner have been discontinued, and thus, the order is stigmatic and
punitive; therefore, a full-fledged enquiry ought to have been
conducted by the authorities concerned.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr.
Vijayakumaran CPV vs. Central University of Kerala and Others,
(2020) 12 SCC 426, wherein it is held that if the order of termination of
3
the service of a probationer is stigmatic, he should be afforded an
opportunity of hearing. Para 8 is reproduced herein below
“8. It is well-established position that the material which
amounts to stigma need not be contained in the order of
termination of the probationer, but might be contained in “any
document referred to in the termination order”. Such reference
may inevitably affect the future prospects of the incumbent
and if so, the order must be construed as exfacie stigmatic
order of termination. A threeJudge Bench of this Court in Indra
Pal Gupta vs. Managing Committee, Model Inter College,
Thora1 had occasion to deal with somewhat similar situation.
In that case, the order of termination referred to the decision of
the Managing Committee and subsequent approval by the
competent authority as the basis for termination. The
resolution of the Managing Committee in turn referred to a
report of the Manager which indicated serious issues and that
was made the basis for the decision by the Committee to
terminate probation of the employee concerned. Relying on
the aforementioned decision, the Court in Dipti Prakash
Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic
Sciences, Calcutta & Ors.2, observed as follows: “32. The
next question is whether the reference in the impugned order
to the three earlier letters amounts to a stigma if those three
letters contained anything in the nature of a stigma even
though the order of termination itself did not contain anything
offensive.”
4. In the matter of Chandan Prasad Sah vs. State of Chhattisgarh and
Ors., decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 1625
of 2025, it has been held that though the employee was a contractual
employee, he was entitled to the opportunity of hearing and the
authorities were under an obligation to conduct an enquiry. Para 7 is
reproduced herein below:-
“7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions made by the parties and further considering the
aforesaid aspect of the matter as also, the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swati Priyadarshini
(Supra), this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order
dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure P/4) has not been passed in
accordance with law. The petitioner, even though he is a
contractual employee is required to be given an opportunity of
hearing and the respondent authorities are under an
obligation to conduct an enquiry if prima facie, they find any
misconduct on the part of the petitioner, which in the present
4case was not done. As such, the impugned order dated
24.10.2024 (Annexure P/4) is liable to be and accordingly,
quashed. However, the respondent authorities will be at
liberty to initiate any proceedings as available under the law
by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.”
5. In the matter of Yaad Das Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.,
decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 8212 of
2023, it is held that Article 311 of the Constitution of India must be
complied with while terminating the services of a government servant.
6. In the matter of Pankaj Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
decided by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in W.P. No. 17879 of
2023, it was held that the orders with regard to termination of the
services were passed in contravention of the principles of natural
justice; therefore, those orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Para 10 is reproduced herein below:-
“10. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the facts
and circumstances of the present case, this Court has no
hesitation to hold that the impugned orders dated
15.06.2023 (Annexure P/13) and 03.07.2023 (Annexure
P/14) are issued in violation of principles of natural justice
and as such, they are not sustainable and are hereby set
aside. Although, liberty is granted to the respondents if so
required, they can conduct a fresh enquiry by giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then take a fresh
decision in accordance with law. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case when after 31.03.2023 petitioner
was allowed to continue and it could be considered that his
contract was extended, the petitioner should be reinstated in
service and enquiry, if so required, could be completed
within a period of three months from the date of initiation of
the same. Since the petitioner is a contract employee,
therefore, this Court does not deem it fit to pass any order of
back wages. However, the services which have not been
rendered by the petitioner when he remained out from
service, he cannot claim any wagna for the said period.
However, it is directed that this order be implemented within
a period of 30 days from submitting copy of this order, failing
which, the petitioner shall be entitled to claim wages
accordingly.”
5
7. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would oppose
the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit
that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 8.11.2021,
wherein it was specifically stated that without prior approval of
respondents No. 2 & 3, the petitioner changed the direction of the road.
They would contend that a committee was constituted and an enquiry
was conducted strictly in accordance with the law, and the petitioner
was afforded sufficient opportunity. They would also submit that the
Committee found the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Rojgar Sahayak,
and the petitioner guilty of the commission of irregularities. They would
also contend that the provisions of the law have already been complied
with and the principles of natural justice were duly followed; therefore,
the petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents present on the record.
9. In the matter of Dr. Vijayakumaran (supra), it is held that where the
order is stigmatic, an enquiry should be conducted.
10. In the present case, the services of the petitioner were terminated after
due enquiry, which was conducted by an Enquiry Committee. The
enquiry report would reveal that the petitioner, as well as the other
responsible persons, were afforded sufficient opportunity, and their
statements were also recorded by the Enquiry Committee. It is also
apparent that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before
the final decision.
6
11. Admittedly, the petitioner was a contractual employee and was
appointed in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Rules of
2012.
12. The law laid down in the matter of Chandan Prasad Sah (supra)
would not help the petitioner, as an enquiry was conducted by a
committee constituted by the Collector and sufficient opportunity was
afforded. The provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India would
not apply as the petitioner was not a government servant. Similarly, the
judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh rendered in the matter
of Pankaj Sharma (supra) would not help the petitioner, since after the
issuance of the show-cause notice, sufficient opportunity was provided,
and thereafter, the impugned order was passed.
13. The petitioner could not establish the fact that she was not part of the
decision making process whereby the direction of an under
construction road was changed; rather, she has tried to justify her
conduct. The petitioner has not challenged the enquiry report and its
findings in this petition.
14. Considering the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to
interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition fails and is
hereby dismissed.
SD/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi