Facts
The petitioner was employed as a Rojgar Sahayak under Gram Panchayat Bbhani in Janpad Panchayat Wadrafnagar
Source reference: p. 1Following a complaint of financial irregularities, an inquiry was conducted by two Technical Assistants (MGNREGA)
Source reference: p. 2Based on this inquiry report, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Janpad Panchayat issued an order dated 05.03.2021 removing the petitioner from service
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner challenged this termination on the grounds that the procedure adopted violated the mandatory guidelines issued by the Commissioner MGNREGA on 28.09.2018 regarding the removal of Rojgar Sahayaks
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the termination order passed by the CEO of the Janpad Panchayat was legally sustainable in light of the procedural requirements mandated by the communication dated 28.09.2018
Source reference: p. 3, para. 62. Whether the inquiry conducted by Technical Assistants, rather than the CEO of the Janpad Panchayat personally, and the failure of the Zila Panchayat to act as the disciplinary authority, invalidated the removal
Source reference: p. 3-4Law Applied
The Court primarily applied the procedural guidelines established by the Commissioner MGNREGA via communication dated 28.09.2018
Source reference: p. 3This rule stipulates a three-tier disciplinary process: (i) the CEO of the Janpad Panchayat must conduct the initial inquiry and submit a report to the Zila Panchayat; (ii) the CEO of the Zila Panchayat, acting as the disciplinary authority, must issue a show-cause notice and provide an opportunity of hearing; and (iii) the final termination order is to be executed by the CEO of the Janpad Panchayat only after approval from the District Programme Coordinator/Collector
Source reference: p. 3, para. 6Reasoning
The Court found that the respondents deviated significantly from the mandatory procedure prescribed in the 28.09.2018 communication. Instead of the CEO of the Janpad Panchayat conducting the inquiry and forwarding it to the Zila Panchayat for adjudication, the CEO of the Janpad Panchayat delegated the inquiry to Technical Assistants and subsequently passed the termination order himself
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 7The Court determined that since the CEO of the Zila Panchayat did not exercise the role of the disciplinary authority—failing to issue the requisite show-cause notice or afford a hearing as required by the guidelines—the removal process was fundamentally flawed and "bad in law"
Source reference: p. 4, para. 8Holding
The Court held that the termination order dated 05.03.2021 was procedurally defective and quashed it
The petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service forthwith, though without back wages. The Court directed Respondents No. 3 and 4 to afford the petitioner a fresh opportunity of hearing and to take action strictly according to the communications dated 30.07.2014 and 28.09.2018 within a period of 30 days
Source reference: p. 4, para. 8Original Court PDF
RAMCHANDRA PRAJAPATIvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in