2026:CGHC:6890 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8189 of 2025 Nand Kumar Bharatvanshi S/o Late Shivcharan Aged About 42 Years Rojgar Sahayak (Presently Removed), At Gram Panchayat Ghodari, District :

Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Ministry Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Collector Office Of The Collectorate, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner :Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2/State :Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by For Resp. No. 3 & 4 Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate on behalf of PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date:

2026.02.07 +0530 Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

06/02/2026.

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner's case.

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quashed the impugned order dated 02/05/2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 4 and kindly pass a suitable direction to the respondent No.4 to reinstate the petitioner on his place of posting as Rojgar Sahayak.

10.3 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner. An affidavit in support of this petition is filed herewith.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner was appointed on the post of Rojgar Sahayak of Gram Panchayat- Ghodari, Janpad Panchayat Mahasamund, District Mahasamund on 12.03.2014 and since then petitioner was discharging his duties diligently, responsibly with full honesty. Respondent No.3 issued notice on 08.04.2025 asking the petitioner to submit reply within specified time frame vide Annexure P-2. In the show cause notice there was allegation against the petitioner that petitioner is negligent in his duty and further, on the relevant date, petitioner appeared in duty after consuming liquor. Show cause notice was replied by petitioner on very next date and have specifically denied all the allegations made therein. Respondent authority based on the show cause notice and reply submitted by petitioner has passed order Annexure P-1 terminating services of petitioner. He contended that petitioner was not served with any document along with show cause notice, enabling him in taking appropriate defence. When respondent authority taken step to issue show cause notice alleging grievous/serious allegation against petitioner then it was for the authority to have initiated full fledged enquiry against petitioner wherein petitioner would have an opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses. It is for respondent authority to prove the allegation/charge levelled against petitioner against show cause notice which is missing in this case and therefore order Annexure P-1 proposing major punishment of termination of service of petitioner is to be set aside being in violation of principle of justice. He places reliance upon the decision of this Court in Bineet Kumar Jaiswal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.3140 of 2019 decided on

05.12.2024).

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that action of termination of service of petitioner is taken by respondent No.3 and therefore main contesting party is respondent No.3.

4. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 would vehemently oppose submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that petitioner is not a permanent employee but is working on contract basis as Rojgar Sahayak. She contended that after receiving multiple complaints and