H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO, 4299 OF 2008 PETITIONER Vijendra Kumar Dewangan, aged about 20 years, Slo Shri Gopi Ram Dewangan, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Gram Panchayat Potiadih, P.O. Potiadih, Disit. Dhamtari (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Deveiopment Department, Mantrafaya, Raipur (CG). 2. The Collector, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). 3. Chief Executive omcer, Zila Panchayat, Dhamtarl, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dhamtarl, Distt. Dhamlari (CG). ' RTS E5PONDEN (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of indie) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present : Shri Shrawan Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 20“; day of August, 2008) The petitioner impugns the order dated 6-5-2008 (Annexure-P/4) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dhamtariy whereby the petitioner was removed from the post of Gram Rojgar $ahayak. 2) Shri Agrawal,’leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was appointed for a period of one year on 12-2-2007 (Annexure-PM) on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and thereafter the term of the appointment was. extended. No document in support of this averment of extension has been filed. 3) Learned oounsei for the petitioner further submits that the impugned ‘ order has been passed on the instructions of the Commissioner. Thus, the \ samsd eiba. ,’ \\ 4) l have heard teamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the ‘ \pleadings and the documents appended thereto. it appears that initially the / ; petitioner was appointed on 12-2—2007 on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak for a period of one year. it is not clear that whether the period of service was extended or not. During the inspection of Commissioner on 22-4-2008, the villagers and the labourers made complaint against the petitioner. On the basis of which a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the same day i.e. 22-4-2008 (Annexure-P/2). The petitioner has submitted his response on dated nil (Annexure—P/Ci). The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Potiadih has also sent a communication tothe Chief Executive Officer on 22-4—2008. There are two allegations, One allegation is that the petitioner is not making entries in the register. and second is that the job cards of certain persons are not prepared and kept with the petitioner. The Sarpanch has stated that it is not possible to make entries in the register; therefore, some time is taken by the petitioner. With regard to other allegation, the Sarpanch has not said anything. The petitioner has justified by saying that no job card is prepared in respect of one Naveen Patel and other three persons have not worked & they have not deposited the job card with the petitioner. ‘ 5) Enquiry was conducted by the Chief Executive Officer and after having considered the response submitted by the petitioner, pursuant to the show cause notice, has come to the conclusion that there are serious irregularities in implementation of Rojgar Guarantee scheme. The payments are not made to the labourers and there was stoppage of work also. Thus, the principles of natural justice have been followed and, as such, the decision taken on enquiry, after considering the response of the petitioner, cannot be reviewed if the proper process has been followed. This is not a case where the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing. 6) In view of the foregoing, this petition is devoid 'of merit and is dismissed at the motion stage itself. 7) Consequently, l.A.No.1 for grant of stay Stands disposed of. //e Gowri Sdl- i ' Satish K. Agmhotn Judge