2026:CGHC:13841 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13978 of 2025 Smt. Purnime Dhruw W/o Shri Kanhai Ram Dhruw Aged About 46 Years Occupation- Rojgar Sahayak (M G N R E G A) At Village Panchayat Nishtiguda Janpad Panchayat- Devbhog, R/o Ward No. 19 Village Fulimuda, Post Nistiguda, Tahsil- Devbhog, District Gariyaband C.G.

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

2 - The Commissioner, M G N R E G A, Vikas Bhawan, 1st Floor, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G.

3 - The Collector District- Gariyaband C.G.

4 - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District-

Gariyaband C.G.

5 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Devbhog, District-

Gariyaband C.G.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, P.L.

For Respondent No. 4 & 5 : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate HON'BLE SHRI PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, JUDGE

ORDER ON BOARD

23/03/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs.

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ to quash the impugned termination order dated 11/09/2025 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the Chief Executive Officer, of the of the Janpad Panchayat Devbhog District Gariyaband and declare the same as void and inoperative, in furtherance of justice.

10.2 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the impugned termination order dated 11/09/2025 and reinstate the Petitioner in her service, in the interest of justice.

10.3 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and quash the order dated 10/11/2025 passed by the District Collector Gariyaband, in the interest of justice.

10.4 Any other relief/relief's which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may be granted, in furtherance of justice.”

2. Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Rozgar Sahayak, initially in the year 2007 on contract and since then he is working continuously. The respondent authorities without following due process of law granting opportunity of hearing has passed an order Annexure-P/1 removing the petitioner from service. He also contended that in the order, reasons assigned for removal of petitioner from service is, her involvement in financial irregularities which is perse wrong. In the show cause notice dated 28.07.2025 it is only mentioned that the petitioner has entered the name of her husband and son in the muster roll and made payment of Rs. 5,166/-. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that there is no mention of any provision in the show cause notice, restricting petitioner to engage her family member as labourer for working under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana and if it is a case of respondents that the petitioner has fraudulently withdrawn the amount of Rs. 5,166/- mentioning the name of family members of petitioner, no such enquiry was conducted. He submits that if removal / termination of the petitioner / employee, even if a contractual employee is made, alleging committed financial irregularities is punitive in nature and therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to conduct a detailed enquiry against the petitioner granting opportunity of hearing and further the opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witness in this regard. In support of his contention he has placed reliance in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of Swati Priyadarshini v. State of M.P. and Others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2139 decided on 22.08.2024 and the judgment passed by this Court in WPS No. 2515 of 2024 (Praveen Goyal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) passed on 11.04.2025 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

3. Counsel for the State would submit that the grievance of the petitioner