SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MANOJ SINGH RAJPUT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS/9744/2023



##PAGE1##

1

Digitally

signed by

2026:CGHC:6677

SHAYNA

KADRI

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 9744 of 2023

1 - Manoj Singh Rajput S/o Late Ganpat Singh Rajput Aged About 42

Years Rojgar Sahayak At Gram Panchayat, Machandur, Janpad

Panchayat Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural

Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya

Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Collector Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

3 - The Chief Executive Officer Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

4 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Durg, District : Durg,

Chhattisgarh

5 - The Secretary Village Panchayat Machandur, Janpad Panchayat

Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. A. S. Rajput, Advocate

For State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer

For Resp. No. 4 : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate holding brief on

behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate

##PAGE2##

2

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

05/02/2026

1. The present writ petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased

to issue a suitable writ or writs for quashing /

set aside the order dated 13.12.23 (Annexure

P-3) passed by respondent no. 4 Chief

Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Durg,

District (C.G.). Durg

10.2 Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit

and proper in the facts and circumstances of

the case, may also be allowed.”

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially

appointed on the post of Rojgar Sahayak on contractual basis by

the respondent No. 4 vide appointment order dated 19.12.2019,

and thereafter his services were extended from time to time

without any break, lastly up to 12.12.2023, in recognition of his

satisfactory performance and continued requirement of his

services. A copy of the appointment order dated 19.12.2019 has

been filed and marked as Annexure P-1. During the course of his

engagement, certain allegations regarding alleged irregularities

under the MGNREGA Scheme were levelled against the

Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Machandur as well as the

petitioner. Pursuant thereto, an Enquiry Committee was duly

constituted by the competent authority to enquire into the said

allegations. After conducting a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry

Committee submitted its report, categorically holding that the

##PAGE3##

3

allegations levelled against the petitioner were baseless and false,

and no irregularity was found attributable to him. Despite the

aforesaid exoneration and without issuing any show-cause notice

or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the

respondent No. 4 abruptly passed the impugned order dated

13.12.2023 removing the petitioner from the post of Rojgar

Sahayak, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and

acting in an arbitrary and illegal manner. Being aggrieved by the

said arbitrary action, the petitioner has been constrained to invoke

the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present

petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned

order dated 13.12.2023 passed by respondent No. 4 is wholly

illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is

contended that the said order has been passed without issuing

any show-cause notice and without affording any opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner, thereby resulting in a gross violation of

the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits

that the very foundation of the impugned order is vitiated

inasmuch as the reason assigned therein alleges that the Enquiry

Committee found the petitioner guilty, whereas a bare perusal of

the enquiry report clearly reveals that the allegations levelled

against the petitioner were found to be baseless and false, and no

adverse finding whatsoever was recorded against him. The

enquiry report, which has already been brought on record as

#

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top