2025:CGHC:58554 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(S) No.4354 of 2020 Smt. Satyabhama Chauhan W/o Ant Ram Chouhan, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Salhejhariya, Janpad Panchayat, Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat Avam Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - The Collector, Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3 - The Additional Commissioner, Mahasamund, District SISTLA NEELIMA Mahasamund Chhattisgarh VISHNU PRIYA SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna, District Date: 2025.12.04 Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

5 - Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate.

For State/Respondents : Shri Rajeev Bharat, G.A.

For Respondent No.4 : Shri Yash Raj Verma on behalf of Shri Amrito Das, Advocates.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order on Board

03.12.2025

1. This Petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs”-

“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly call for the entire record relating to the case of the petitioner.

10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly issue a writ or writs/order/or orders to quash the order dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) in Panchayat Appeal Case No.14A/89/2018-19 and further be pleased to allow the petitioner on the post of Rojgar Sahayak at Village Salhejhariya, Janpad Panchayat Basna, District : Mahasamund (CG).

10.3. That, any other relief, this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the

petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

2. The Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Rojgar

Sahayak at Gram Panchayat, Salhejhariya, District Mahasamund

by Respondent No.4 on 24.05.2008 (Annexure P-4) under the

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme

(MGNREGA) for a period of one year and thereafter, her services were extended from time to time.

3. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) whereby, Respondent No.2 has rejected the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and affirmed the order dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure P-2) whereby, Respondent No.4 has removed/terminated the services of the Petitioner from the post of Rojgar Sahayak on account of committing irregularities in the handling of governmental funds allocated for construction activities. 4. Shri Patel, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is clear violation of principle of natural justice as no departmental enuqiry was conducted before passing the impugned order and a stigmatic termination order has been passed by the Respondent/Authorities and placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the matter of Swati Priyadarshani vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139 to submit 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 this case. He further submits that 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]. 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.

5. Alternatively, learned Counsel for the Respondents support the impugned order and submit that as the Petitioner was found negligent in carrying out t