Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Reinstatement of MGNREGA Programme Officers, Citing Stigmatic Termination

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – May 9, 2025 – The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant ruling, has ordered the reinstatement of two contractual Programme Officers under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA), holding that their termination was stigmatic and passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. Justice Rajani Dubey allowed the writ petitions filed by Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta and Mansay Sidar , quashing their termination orders and directing their reinstatement with 50% back wages.

Case Background: Termination and Disputed Appeal

Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta and Mansay Sidar , appointed as Programme Officers in 2009 and 2006 respectively on a contractual basis, had their services extended periodically until 2016. On May 8, 2017, the Collector-cum-District Project Co-ordinator (MANREGA), District Surajpur, terminated their services, citing "negligence in MGNREGA work" and "not making expected progress."

The petitioners appealed this decision to the Divisional Commissioner, Surguja Division, who, on July 4, 2017, set aside the termination and ordered their reinstatement. However, the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat Surajpur sought guidance on the appeal's maintainability. Subsequently, on July 14, 2017, the Commissioner, MGNREGA, Naya Raipur , issued an order stating that there was no provision for appeal against non-extension of service or termination of contract service under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2012, rendering the Divisional Commissioner's order non-binding. This led the petitioners to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Contentions: Mr. Arpan Verma, counsel for the petitioners, argued that the termination orders were not simpliciter but were punitive and stigmatic, effectively a dismissal for misconduct. He contended that: * Show cause notices were issued based on inquiries conducted behind the petitioners' backs, alleging misconduct and financial irregularities, without providing them copies of the inquiry reports. * The termination, carrying civil consequences, was effected without a fair opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which protects against arbitrary dismissal. * The petitioners were governed by rules requiring a proper inquiry before imposing a major penalty.

Respondents' Defense: Learned counsel for the State and Zila Panchayat Surajpur opposed the petitions, submitting that: * The petitioners were contractual employees under MGNREGA, and their performance was found unsatisfactory. * Ample opportunity was given via show cause notices before termination. * The appeal before the Divisional Commissioner was not maintainable under the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 (Contract Appointment Rules, 2012), making the appellate authority's order non-binding and without jurisdiction. * Recruitment for the posts was already in process.

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

Justice Rajani Dubey , after hearing both sides and perusing the records, found merit in the petitioners' arguments. The Court observed that the termination orders explicitly cited "negligence in duty and not making expected progress."

The High Court heavily relied on established legal principles and precedents:

Stigmatic Termination: The Court noted, "It is apparent that the impugned orders are not a termination simpliciter but the order held to be stigmatic or punitive on this ground that it was alleged that the petitioners were terminated from their service for being negligent and adverse misconduct & the same have been passed without complying the principles of natural justice and without holding departmental enquiry, as such the impugned orders are not sustainable." (Para 11)

Principles of Natural Justice: Referring to the Apex Court's decision in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Brijesh Kumar and Another (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2282) , the judgment quoted: > “19. The services of the respondent have been determined solely on the ground of misconduct as alleged but without holding any regular inquiry or affording any opportunity of hearing to him. ... The termination order is apparently stigmatic in nature which could not have been passed without following the Principles of natural Justice.”

Protection for Temporary/Contractual Employees: The Court also cited its own ruling in Dilip Rangari Vs. State of C.G. & Another (W.P.(S) No.1446/2015, decided 16.12.2024) , which itself referenced Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that even temporary government servants are entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) if the termination is punitive. The Dilip Rangari judgment summarized: > “...(iii) though the petitioner has been removed according to the Rule 11 (5) of the Rules, 2012 by following the conditions of appointment given in clause 5, but order of termination passed against the petitioner is stigmatic and cannot be regarded as a termination simpliciter; (iv) no enquiry was conducted by the employer before passing of the order impugned.” (Para 10, quoting Para 13 of Dilip Rangari )

The High Court found that the termination of the petitioners, who had served since 2006 and 2009 with extensions up to 2016, was indeed stigmatic as it cited negligence and unsatisfactory performance, which could adversely affect their future employment prospects. Such a termination, the Court ruled, could not have been passed without a proper departmental inquiry and adherence to natural justice.

Final Verdict and Implications

The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed both writ petitions and delivered the following orders:

1. The termination orders dated May 8, 2017 (Annexure P-1) were quashed and set aside.

2. The order dated July 14, 2017 (Annexure P-3), which declared the Divisional Commissioner's reinstatement order non-binding, was also quashed and set aside.

3. The petitioners are to be reinstated in service on their respective posts with all consequential benefits and 50% back wages.

4. The respondent authorities were directed to allow the petitioners to perform their duties.

5. Liberty was reserved for the respondent authorities to initiate a proper departmental inquiry against the petitioners, if desired, by affording them a reasonable opportunity of hearing and defense, and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and natural justice.

This judgment reaffirms the principle that even contractual employees cannot be terminated on grounds that cast a stigma without following due process and the principles of natural justice. It underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding employees from arbitrary administrative actions, irrespective of their employment status, when such actions are punitive in nature.