1 / 4
Digitally signed
by NADIM
MOHLE
2024:CGHC:33314
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3377 of 2015
Ramchandra Talal, S/o Vishwanath Talal, Aged About 27 Years, Rojgar
Sahayak, (Dismissed), R/o Village Dodke, Post Mudpar, Tahsil Ambagarh
Chowki, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Panchayat
And Social Welfare, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office and
Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Collector, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ambagarh Chowki, District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate
For State : Ms. Neelima Singh, Panel Lawyer
For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate, holding the brief
No. 4 & 5 of Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
30.08.2024
1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.i.
That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
set-aside/quash the order dated 25/6/2015 (Annexure -
P/1) passed by the respondent No.2/Commissioner, Durg
Division, Durg; order dated 20/4/2015 (Annexure - P/2)
passed by the respondent No.3/Collector, Rajnandgaon;
and the order dated 12/12/2014 (Annexure - P/3) passed
by the respondent No.5/Chief Executive Officer, Janpad
Panchayat, Ambagarh Chowki, Dist.Rajnandgaon.
2 / 4
ii.
That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner on
the post of Rojgar Sahayak and also direct them to grant
all consequential benefits including the monetary benefits.
Iii.
Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper, along with cost of the petition may also kindly be
.”
granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice
2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that at the
relevant time, the petitioner was appointed to the post of ‘Employment
Assistant’ vide order dated 11.08.2009 under the National Employment
Guarantee Scheme. He further submitted that a complaint was
received against the petitioner, pursuant to which, a preliminary enquiry
was conducted and it was found that some of the labourers were
working in 2 different schemes, but their names were mentioned in the
muster rolls. It was further found that they used to work from 8.00 am to
5.00 pm under the petitioner and thereafter, they worked for the
construction of a pond under a different scheme. It was held that the
petitioner was negligent in the discharge of his duties. A show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner and being dissatisfied with the reply
filed by the petitioner, the order of removal was passed by respondent
No. 5 vide order 12.12.2014. He argued that earlier, witnesses had
denied the allegation made against the petitioner and the same is part
of the enquiry report. He further argued that without there being any
basis in the allegation, the contrary findings have been recorded
against the petitioner on the basis of an enquiry report and the order of
removal was passed; thus, he prayed that the orders passed by the
respondents No. 2 & 3 may be quashed and the petitioner may be
reinstated in the service with all consequential benefits.
3 / 4
3) On the other hand, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents
submitted that the petitioner was posted on a contractual basis on the
post of ‘Employment Assistant’ and he was engaged for a limited
period. They further submitted that after receipt of a complaint against
the petitioner, a preliminary enquiry was conducted wherein, the
allegations made against him were found proven. They also submitted
that there are concurrent findings recorded by the Collector as well as
the Commissioner. It is contended that in different muster rolls, names
of the same labourers were mentioned by the petitioner, which made
the basis for the implication of the petitioner in the irregularities in
discharging his duties; thus, they stated that the present petition
deserves to be dismissed.
4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
documents placed on the file.
5) From a perusal of the documents, it is apparent that the petitioner was
a contractually appointed employee to the post of Employment
Assistant; against him, one complaint was made by the villagers to the
effect that the names of the labourers were found in the muster rolls
maintained under two different schemes. Pursuant to the said
complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted, wherein, it was found
that under the Employment Guarantee Scheme, the present
petitioner/Employment Assistant was held responsible for not keeping
records of workers leaving the site while engaged in the pond
deepening and construction work of Mahila Ghat, and for workers not
remaining present at the site from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. The duties to be
performed by an Employment Assistant are preparing muster rolls and
exercising control over the workers to ensure they complete their tasks.
4 / 4
The petitioner was found guilty of negligence in performing the duties
of the Employment Assistant, including not ensuring the workers
completing their tasks during the specified hours and making forged
entries in the muster rolls, therefore, the order of removal was passed
by respondent No. 5 on 12.12.2014 against which an appeal was
preferred before respondent No. 3, but the same was dismissed on
20.04.2015 and a revision preferred by the petitioner against the order
dated 20.04.2015 was also dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide order
25.06.2015.
6) In the present case, there are concurrent findings recorded by
respondents No. 2 & 3. Further, proper enquiry was conducted against
the petitioner and a show cause notice was also issued to him, which
shows that a proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before
passing the order of removal. There is no pleading that due opportunity
of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner and this Court while
exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
cannot sit as an appellate authority, unless there is a violation of the
principles of natural justice and the relevant Rules and Regulations
governing the field, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is
made out in favour of the petitioner.
7) Accordingly, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No
order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nadim