Termination of a Rojgar Sahayak without prescribed inquiry and hearing is legally unsustainable.

Respondent No. 4 was employed as a Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Paladikhurd, Janpad Panchayat Sakti. Following complaints alleging manipulation of muster rolls and financial irregularities, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat terminated her services by order dated 21 September 2016, without conducting the inquiry contemplated under the applicable scheme and without affording her a proper opportunity of hearing.

Respondent No. 4 challenged the termination before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, by filing a revision. The Additional Commissioner allowed the revision on 19 April 2018, holding that the termination was procedurally defective and that a forged report had been prepared at the instance of the Sarpanch and Secretary.

The Gram Panchayat challenged the Commissioner’s order before the High Court, principally contending that the revision was not maintainable and that the termination was lawful.

1. Whether the termination of Respondent No. 4 as Rojgar Sahayak was valid when it was effected without the inquiry prescribed under the applicable scheme and without providing a proper opportunity of hearing?

2. Whether the Commissioner could grant relief merely because Respondent No. 4 had filed a revision instead of an appeal against the termination order?

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of a fair opportunity of hearing before imposing an adverse termination order, and the procedural safeguards prescribed under the applicable scheme governing removal of a Rojgar Sahayak.

It further applied the settled principle that merely citing an incorrect statutory provision or adopting an incorrect nomenclature does not invalidate proceedings where the authority otherwise possesses jurisdiction to grant the relief sought; consequently, the filing of a revision instead of an appeal was not treated as fatal in the circumstances of the case.

The Court also recognized that the prescribed inquiry procedure must be followed before removal from service.

The High Court found that the termination was substantively and procedurally defective because no inquiry contemplated by the governing scheme had been conducted and Respondent No. 4 had not been afforded a proper opportunity of hearing.

Although the Court accepted that an appeal, rather than a revision, was the appropriate remedy against the Chief Executive Officer’s order, it held that the incorrect nomenclature did not deprive the Commissioner of jurisdiction to examine the challenge or grant appropriate relief.

Since the termination violated the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice, the Additional Commissioner was justified in setting aside the termination order.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 19 April 2018 setting aside the termination was allowed to stand.