2025:CGHC:60208 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(S) No.2364 of 2020 Angesh Kumar Sinha S/o Ishu Ram Sinha Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Chhuiya, Thana Fingeshwar, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

4 - Program Officer MNREGA Project, Janpad Panchayat, SISTLA NEELIMA Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents VISHNU PRIYA SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.12.12 For Petitioner : Shri Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate.

For State/Respondent: Ms. Mandvi Bharadwaj, PL.

No.1 For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order on Board

11.12.2025

1. This Petition has been filed assailing the termination order dated 27.02.2020 (Annexure P-1) whereby, without conducting proper enquiry, a stigmatic order has been passed and the services of the Petitioner were terminated from the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak employed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA).

2. For adjudicating the present case, the relevant facts are that the Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Chhuiya, Janpad Panchayat, Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband vide order dated 13.02.2014 (Annexure P-2) for a period of one year and thereafter, his services were extended from time to time. By the impugned order, a stigmatic finding has been recorded to the effect that the Petitioner was lackadaisical and had exhibited gross negligence in the discharge of his duties and on the said allegations of misconduct, his services were terminated. However, before passing the said order, no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner and therefore, the impugned order stands vitiated being in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence this Petition.

3. Shri Yadav, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that before passing any stigmatic order of termination, a proper enquiry is mandatory and this legal position has been elucidated in Swat i Priyadarshani v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139 wherein, it has been held that the termination of service of the employee for alleged negligence, misconduct or other disqualification would harm their future career, therefore, proper enquiry before termination is mandatory, however, no such procedure has been followed in the instant case. He further submits that the said principle has been reiterated by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Praveen Goyal vs. State of CG and Ors ; 2025: CGHC:17021 [WPS No.2515/2024] and also in the case of Rakesh Roshan Soj vs. State of CG and Ors; 2025:CGHC:42212 [WPS No.9269/2023] and this Court also, while dealing with a similar matter, relied on the aforesaid principle in the matter of Purnendra Kumar Netam vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.; W.P.(S) No.5012/2020. He lastly submits that the impugned order is not sustainable, which deserves to be set-

aside/quashed and prays that the Petition may be allowed and the Petitioner may be granted all consequential benefits along with back wages.

4. Contrastingly, learned Counsel for the Respondents support the impugned order of termination and submit that sufficient opportunity has already been granted to the Petitioner by issuing him various show-cause notices and explanation has also been sought for. It is further submitted that the order of termination has been passed strictly in terms of the employment and the applicable scheme and as such, no regular Departmental Enquiry is needed. They placed reliance on the connected matters led by Manish Kumar Tiwari v. State of M