ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs: “(i) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash/set aside the order dated 01/01/2015 (Annexure P/6) issued by the respondent no. 2 and consequentially all orders of the respondents authority be set-aside, which was passed against the petitioner removing her from the post of Rojgar Sahayika and confirming it in appeal. (ii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner alongwith all the back wages and all other consequential and other benefit to the petitioner on the post Rojgar Sahaiyaka. (iii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to petitioner case. (iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that, after following due process of law, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Rojgar Sahayika on 08/09/2006, by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon. A false complaint and undated complaint was made against the petitioner, Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Sitakasa that without taking the work they are making payment. Further allegation is that to near and dearer, they are providing the work under the Rojgar Guarantee Scheme. 3. On the complainant a new process had been adopted, which is unknown to law, by the authority and in Jan Sunvaee, the matter was put, without any notice to the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Dongargaon, come to the conclusion, that there was an irregularities and recommended the disciplinary action against the petitioner and others. On that respondent no. 5 issued a show cause notice to petitioner, Sarpanch, and Secretary vide its notice dated 06/04/2010. Show cause notice for Secretary is being filed herewith for showing that he is still working to the post of Secretary and as per the petitioner knowledge, no action had been taken against the Sarpanch and Secretary and only the petitioner had been targeted, just to give appointment to other person. 4. Show cause notice for Secretary is being filed herewith for showing that he is still working to the post of Secretary and as per the petitioner knowledge, no action had been taken against the Sarpanch and Secretary and only the petitioner had been targeted, just to give appointment to other person. 4. Further no proper time was given to the petitioner to file the reply and only two days time was granted, that is against the principal of natural justice. All the act was done by the authority with prejudice mind. Thereafter, directly a removal order was passed on 23/07/2010, no inquiry was conducted, nor any opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cross examine the complainant or witnesses to prove her innocence. The respondent no. 5 further not considered, that filling of Muster Roll, is not the duty of the petitioner, and it is the duty of MAT as per the regulation had been framed. 5. Though the reply is filed, but being predetermine, the respondent no. 5 remove the petitioner form service. Without giving proper opportunity of hearing without supplying any documents or enquiry report, and in utter violation of principles of natural justice, the order was passed which is per se illegal and liable to be set aside. No enquiry whatsoever was conducted, no charge-sheet was served, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to examine or cross examine the witnesses and in the utter violation of principal of natural justice. Being aggrieved with the removal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Additional Collector, and had specifically taken the ground that respondent no. 5 had no jurisdiction to passed the order of removal, the appointment of the petitioner was done by respondent no. 4, and hence the order of removal is without jurisdiction. 6. Further ground was that no enquiry was conducted no opportunity was granted to the petitioner. The respondent No. 6, had given reply in the favour of the petitioner before the respondent no. 3. Tje respondent no. 3, only on the basis that petitioner was afforded an opportunity in Jan Sunvaee and hold that opportunity was granted to the petitioner. Further as far as jurisdiction is concern, as by the letter dated 07/05/2010 issued by the respondent no. 4 delegating the power to respondent no. 5 with regard to disciplinary action against the Rojgar Sahayika, hence respondent no. Further as far as jurisdiction is concern, as by the letter dated 07/05/2010 issued by the respondent no. 4 delegating the power to respondent no. 5 with regard to disciplinary action against the Rojgar Sahayika, hence respondent no. 5 is entitle to remove the petitioner. 7. Against the order dated 18/01/2011, the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent no. 2 raising all the grounds. The respondent no. 2, without application of mind, without considering the legal and factual ground, just reproduce, the order of the respondent no. 3, and not even the change the words, from the orders of respondent no. 2, it appears that it is complete misuse the process of law and fulfilling the formalities of filing the appeal and revision to them, as they are not even applying the mind before passing the order. The petitioner prays that strict action against such officer are to taken or otherwise, the formalities of filing the appeal or revision are to stop. 8. The petitioner service was removed on 23/07/2010 and before removing the service, recommendation was made by the respondent no. 4 for issuance of an advertisement for the post of Rojgar Sahayika was issued on 21/07/2010, this clearly shows that act of removing the petitioner was with prejudice and bias mind, hence liable to be set aside. As per the petitioner knowledge, the advertisement was issued on 23/07/2010. The orders of respondent authority removing the petitioner from service is illegal, unsustainable, unconstitutional, arbitrary, passed with a mala-fide intention and with an ulterior motive and in utter violation of principal of natural justice and hence liable to be set-aside. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the act and order passed by respondent no. 5 and confirming the order by respondent no. 3 and 2 are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, unconstitutional, and against the principal of natural justice and with the malafide intention. Illegally and with an ulterior motive the respondent no. 5 removed the petitioner from service without holding any enquiry. 10. From the act and attitude of the respondent authority, they are trying to frustrate the opportunity of the petitioner for appointment. No reasonable, fair opportunity has been given to the petitioner, before passing the order of removal. Illegally and with an ulterior motive the respondent no. 5 removed the petitioner from service without holding any enquiry. 10. From the act and attitude of the respondent authority, they are trying to frustrate the opportunity of the petitioner for appointment. No reasonable, fair opportunity has been given to the petitioner, before passing the order of removal. No departmental enquiry had been conducted, nor any opportunity has been granted to the petitioner for producing his defence on the allegation made by the respondents or to cross examine the witnesses. The respondent no. 5 is not competent to pass the order of major penalty and instead of set-aside the order of respondent no. 3, which is wholly unsustainable under the eye of law. Order of the respondents in removing the petitioner from service having the civil consequence, without following the principal of natural justice, the order is bad and liable to be set aside by the Hon'ble Court. The livelihood of the petitioner had been taken away by respondents authority that too without complying with the provision of natural justice. 11. When the appointment of the petitioner had been done after following the due process of law, the service of the petitioner cannot be removal in a manner which had been done by the respondent no. 5. Before passing the order the respondent no. 4 ought to have apply its mind judiciously and as per the show cause, the illegality if any committed by the officer of the respondent itself but no action is proposed against them and they are playing with the carrier of the petitioners. The removal from the service, with stigma, without holding the departmental enquiry and the opportunity of hearing is bad as the order of the respondent no. 4 is in utter violation to the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. No payment was made by the petitioner and all the payment are made through Bank, which having no role of petitioner. Muster Roll is being prepared by the MAT and agency is Sarpanch. On the Social Audit, nothing was found against the petitioner. Further the Gram Sabha had recommended that petitioner is not the guilty of the misconduct committed on 19/06/2011. 12. By virtue of act, the power of the delegated to respondent no. 4, and he had no authority to further delegate the power to the respondent no. On the Social Audit, nothing was found against the petitioner. Further the Gram Sabha had recommended that petitioner is not the guilty of the misconduct committed on 19/06/2011. 12. By virtue of act, the power of the delegated to respondent no. 4, and he had no authority to further delegate the power to the respondent no. 5, hence the order passed by respondent no. 5 is bad and liable to be set-aside. There are many aspects which only comes on record after examination and cross examination of complainant and witnesses. One allegation of Laxminarayana Sahu Card No. 79, his name at the Social Audit was not there in any of the muster Roll nor he had disbursed any amount. In view of th above the counsel for the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that before passing the impugned order, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Rojgar Sahayika. On 27/02/2010 a Gram Sabha was held for social tabulation of work sanctioned under the schemes wherein a complaint was made against the petitioner regarding forgery of attendance made by her in the work conducted under the MNREGA and financial irregularities committed by the petitioner. A copy of proceedings of the Gram Sabha held on 27/02/2010 is ANNEXURE R/1. 14. On the basis of complaint made by the Villagers in the Gram Sabha a Jan Sunwayee was also convened on 31/03/2010 in presence of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sarpanch, Sachiv, Rojgar Sahayika and villagers, who are made complaint against the petitioner and after hearing it was found that financial irregularities was committed by the petitioner. Therefore, it was directed that strict action be taken against all the persons who are committed the irregularities. A copy of proceedings of Jan Sunwayee convened on 31/03/2010 is ANNEXURE R/2. It is further respectfully submitted that before taking any action proper opportunity for hearing was granted to the petitioner and in this regard a show cause notice was served to the petitioner on 06/04/2010 (Annexure P/3) wherein two days time was granted to the petitioner for submission of her clarification/reply. It is further respectfully submitted that before taking any action proper opportunity for hearing was granted to the petitioner and in this regard a show cause notice was served to the petitioner on 06/04/2010 (Annexure P/3) wherein two days time was granted to the petitioner for submission of her clarification/reply. On the basis of irregularities committed by the petitioner on 26/04/2010 a proposal for removal of petitioner was sent to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat respondent no. 4 by the respondent no. 5. A copy of proposal dated 26/04/2010 is ANNEXURE R/3. Vide letter no. 1127 dated 07/05/2010 issued by the respondent no. 4 delegating the power to respondent no. 5 with regard to disciplinary action against the Rojgar Sahayika, hence, respondent no. 5 is entitled to remove the petitioner. 15. The respondent no. 5 issued a memorandum on 26/04/2010 to the petitioner alongwith Sarpanch respondent no. 6 and Sachiv regarding recovery of amount which was proved during the proceedings of meeting dated 27/02/2010 (ANNEXURE R/4). A letter was sent to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 18/06/2010 (ANNEXURE R/5). Thereafter, a removal order was passed on 23/07/2010 after granting full opportunity to the petitioner, therefore, the present writ petition is without any merit and liable to be dismissed. 16. I have heard the contentions put forth by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 17. This is an admitted position that the petitioner was appointed on 08.09.2006 (Annexure P/1) and by the impugned order dated 23.07.2010 (Annexure P/4) he was removed from service. Relevant portion of Annexure P/4 is reproduced herein-under: ^^xzke iapk;r & lhrkdlk ¼xS½ dh xzke jkstxkj lgk;d Jhefr ljLorh lkgw }kjk jk"Vªh; xzkeh.k jkstxkj xkjaVh ;kstukUrxZr Lohd`r dk;Z MCY;wch,e lM+d fuekZ.k dk;Z esa QthZ gktjh ntZ djds forh; vfu;ferrk djuk ,oa drZO;ksa esa tkucw>dj ykijokgh cjruk ik;k x;k gSA jk"Vªh; xzkeh.k jkstxkj xkjaVh vf/kfu;e esa fufgr Áko/kkuksa ds foijhr d`R; djus ds QyLo:i Jherh ljLorh lkgw dks xzke iapk;r & lhrkdlk ¼xS½ ds xzke jkstxkj lgk;d ds in ls rRdky i`Fkd fd;k tkrk gSA ;g vkns'k rRdky ÁHkko'khy gksxkA** 18. In the matter of Rakesh Kumar Rathore vs. High Court of M.P. 2022 LAB. I.C. 202, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held in Para 6 and 7 as under: “6. In the matter of Rakesh Kumar Rathore vs. High Court of M.P. 2022 LAB. I.C. 202, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held in Para 6 and 7 as under: “6. The short question of law involved in the present case is as to whether the services of an employee under the Rules relating to Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Contingency Paid (District and Sessions Judge Establishment) Employees Rules, 1980, can be terminated without conducting a departmental enquiry when an order of termination casts stigma on the employee. 7. We are in full agreement with the legal position expounded in various judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. However, in the instant case, the question that arise for consideration, as stated above, is squarely covered by the decision of co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Pal v. District and Sessions Judge, Morena (supra). In the present case, it is an admitted fact that neither charge-sheet was issued nor departmental enquiry was conducted and order of termination attributes dereliction of duty amounting to misconduct, and hence, the same is clearly stigmatic order. The petitioner's services are admittedly governed under the Rules of 1980. If the facts and situation of the present case is examined in the context of the facts and situation of the case of Krishna Pal (supra), it is found that this Court had taken a view (para-5 of the said judgment) that Normally when the services of a temporary employee or a probationer or contingency paid employee is brought to an end by passing innocuous order due to unsatisfactory nature of service or on account of an act for which some action is taken, but the termination is made in a simplicitor manner without conducting of inquiry or without casting any stigma on the employee, the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules 1980 can be taken aid of. However, when the termination is founded on acts of commission or omission, which amounts to misconduct. Such an order casts stigma on the conduct, character and work of the employee and hence, the principle of natural justice, opportunity of hearing and inquiry is requirement of law.” 19. In this case also no preliminary or departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Only a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on some complaints and the impugned order was passed. In this case also no preliminary or departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Only a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on some complaints and the impugned order was passed. It is also clear from Annexure P/3 that this order passed stigma on the conduct, character and work of the petitioner and hence, as per the principles of natural justice, opportunity of hearing and inquiry is required in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority also not considered this ground of the petitioner and rejected the appeal of the petitioner. 20. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and service conditions, this petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/4 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority are set-aside with consequential benefits. The petitioner is entitled to get 30% back wages. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner after providing him a reasonable opportunity of hearing/defence in accordance with law, if they so desire.