Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Omkar Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 2286 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.K. Yadav
For the Respondents: Anil S. Pandey, Siddharth Dubey
Statutory power conferred upon a specific authority to conduct an inquiry cannot be sub-delegated to other officials; failure to follow the prescribed procedure for removal from service renders the termination order void.
Headnote:The petitioner, a Rojgar Sahayak, challenged the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat-Takhatpur, whereby he was removed from service. The case involves the interpretation of the communication dated 28.09.2018 regarding the procedure for removal of Rojgar Sahayaks, which specifies that the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat shall conduct an inquiry and submit the report to the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat, who acts as the disciplinary authority. The primary issue was whether the removal was legally sustainable given that the inquiry was conducted by a delegated team rather than the authorized officer as per the guidelines. The court reasoned that since the authority is specifically notified to conduct the inquiry, such power cannot be sub-delegated. Furthermore, although the petitioner suppressed the fact of receiving a show cause notice, the court found that the procedural violation regarding the inquiry outweighed this omission. The order dated 26.02.2021 is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for reinstatement in service forthwith, without back wages.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against the removal of a rojgar sahayak from service. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on procedural irregularity versus suppression of material facts. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. impact of clean hands doctrine relative to procedural violations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. non-delegability of statutory power to conduct inquiries. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. reinstatement due to improper inquiry procedure. (Para 12 , 13) |
NAFR
Order on Board
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :
“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the present case.
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may please to quash the impugned order dated 26-02-2021 (ANNEXURE P-1) Passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat-Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.).
10.3 That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.”
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, who was posted as Rojgar Sahayak under Gram Panchayat, Junapra in Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) was removed from services vide order dated 26.02.2021 by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.).
3. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Commissioner MGNREGA vide its communication dated 28.09.2018 amended the procedure for removal of Rojgar Sahayak. He would further submit that according to said communication, the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, if receives a complaint against a Rojgar Sahayak, he will conduct an inquiry and will submit its report before the Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, who will be disciplinary authority to inflict penalty. He would contend that in the present case, the inquiry was conducted by the Social Education Organization, Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur, Technical Assistant, Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur and Assistant Grade-III, Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur. He would further contend that as the inquiry was conducted contrary to the communication dated 28.09.2018, the order dated 26.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) is bad in law.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 would oppose submissions. He would submit that a show cause notice was issued and thereafter, inquiry was conducted. He would further submit that the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat delegated power to the Social Education Organization, Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur, Technical Assistant, Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur and Assistant Grade-III, Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur vide order dated 22.07.2020 to conduct an inquiry and pursuant to said order, inquiry was conducted. He would contend that in the inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and therefore, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat exercising power according to communication dated 28.09.2018 inflicted penalty. It is also contended by Mr. Dubey that though a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and reply was filed but this fact has been suppressed by the petitioner and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kusha Duruka Vs. State of Odisha , reported in 2024(4) SCC 432, wherein para 3 held as under :
“3. In K.D. Sharma v. SAIL , reported in 2008 (12) SCC 481, it was observed by this Court: (SCC p. 493, para 39)
"39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs.3 is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not d
