Chattisgarh High Court
Praveen Goyal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:17021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAHUL
JHA
WPS No. 2515 of 2024
Digitally signed by
RAHUL JHA
Date: 2025.04.16
10:34:12 +0530
1 - Praveen Goyal S/o Shri Siyaram Goyal Aged About 40 Years R/o
Amarkantak Road, Gaurela, Tahsil- Pendaroad, District- Gaurela-Pendra-
Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat
And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur,
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Commissioner Mahatma Gandhi Mgnrega, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Council, Vikas Bhawan, Third Floor, Sector-19, North
Block, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Collector Cum District Programme Coordinator Mgnrega District- Gaurela-
Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Project Director Zila Panchayat (Drda), District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi,
Chhattisgarh.
5 - Chief Executive Officer/programme Officer Janpad Panchayat Pendra,
District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Sub Divisional Office Rural Engineering Services, Sub Division- Penda,
District- Gaurela-Penda-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
Respondent(s)
2
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate
For State : Mr. Risabh Bisen, PL
For Resp. No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Advocate
(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
11/04/2025
1. The Petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant on contractual basis
on 04/03/2011 under Mahatma Gandhi Employment Guarantee Scheme
(for short MGNREGA) for a period of one year and subsequently, his
period was extended from time to time.
2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the order dated
31/03/2024 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the Collector has
removed/terminated the petitioner from the post of Technical Assistant
on the basis of inquiry report submitted by the District Level Inquiry
Committee.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Avinash Mishra has
lodged a complaint for certain irregularities and misconduct while
discharging the duties of Technical Assistant against the petitioner. On
the basis of the said complaint, an inquiry team was constituted by the
Project Director on 11/04/2023 to conduct an inquiry on the said
complaint. On 22/05/2023, the Committee started inquiry against the
petitioner and a notice was issued to the petitioner to submit his
explanation about the complaint. The petitioner sought time to submit
his reply and requested the Inquiry Committee to supply necessary
3
documents to submit his reply. However, on 22/05/2023, the petitioner
submitted interim reply to the said notice denying the complaint made by
the Complainant. Further, on 26/06/2023, the petitioner submitted a
detailed reply reiterating the earlier reply as well as denying the
allegations. The Inquiry Team submitted the inquiry report on
14/07/2023 to respondent No.4 and subsequently, the impugned order
has been passed. Learned counsel submits that when a show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner, he submitted his reply to the Project
Director, however, the Collector without considering the reply to the
show cause notice, by a non-speaking and unreasoned order, removed
the petitioner from the post of Technical Assistant only on the basis of
report submitted by the Inquiry Committee. Learned counsel would
further submit that the petitioner was appointed as contractual employee,
but the order of termination is stigmatic order, which appears from the
order itself and before termination or removing the petitioner from
service, the respondent’s authority has to conduct a Departmental
Inquiry and has to give sufficient opportunity of hearing and subsquently
by observing principals of natural justice, they can take necessary action
against the petitioner, whereas, in the present case, the respondents’
authority have not conducted any departmental inquiry and only on the
basis of the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, the order impugned has
been passed by the Collector. Even the Collector has not issued any
notice to the petitioner and no explanation was sought from the
petitioner before passing the order impugned, which is bad in law..
Learned counsel has relied the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this
4
Court passed in WPS No. 8212/2023 decided on 03/01/2023 and submits
that the removal or termination of a contractual appointee, if any
stigmatic order is to be passed, the Departmental Enquiry is must.
4. Learned counsel for the State as well as respondent No. 4 & 5 submits
that the Committee which has been appointed by the Collector has
afforded sufficient opportunity to the petitioner by giving a show cause
notice and sought explanation. Hence, there is no need to conduct any
Departmental Enquiry. The Inquiry Team has found the complaint
against the petitioner as proved and therefore, the Collector has passed
the order impugned as such there is no illegality and infirmity in the
order impugned.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Inquiry
Committee report and the order passed by the Collector (Annexure-P/1).
6. The Collector while passing the impugned order has fully relied upon the
opinion of the Inquiry Committee and without affording any opportunity
of hearing, the impugned order has been passed by a non-speaking and
unreasoned order. Even the Collector did not explain about the opinion
of the Enquiry Committee and did not consider the explanation given by
the petitioner. Further it appears that neither any departmental inquiry
was conducted not any notice was issued before passing the order of
termination.
7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139
5
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.
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 here-in-
above, the impugned order dated 31/03/2024 (Annexure P/1) is hereby
quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all the benefits following from
quashment of impugned order dated 31/03/2024. 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
[ad_1]
Source link