1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 39 of 2022 1 - Ashish Jangde S/o Late Leela Ram Jangde Aged About 34 Years R/o Village And Post - Bodsara, Tahsil - Bilha, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Charama, District - North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri A.V. Sridhar, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Amandeep Singh, P.L. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Lalit Jangde, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 23.6.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. NIRMALA RAO 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 16.10.2015 and order dated 18.06.2021 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that the father of the petitioner entitled to all the retiral benefits from the date of superannuation i.e. 31.08.2015. 10.4 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case may be given.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner was working on the post of Gram Sahayak under Janpad Panchayat, Durgukondal. He was served with a memorandum of charges on 23.6.2003, wherein 17 allegations were levelled against him. A reply dated 14.8.2003 was submitted denying all the allegations. Thereafter, respondent No.2 appointed an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. Enquiry Officer found all the allegations proved against the father of the petitioner and submitted the enquiry report before the Deputy Director, Panchayat on 21.8.2015. The enquiry report would further reveal that the father of the petitioner as well as the Officers of the department were directed to provide relevant documents, however, the said documents were not provided and an adverse inference was drawn against the father of the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority/ respondent No.2 inflicted a penalty of recovery of Rs.1,62,843/- against the petitioner. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner 3 and it was dismissed vide order dated 18.6.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short ‘Rules, 1999’). He would contend that the allegations made in show-cause notice were specifically denied by the father of the petitioner, therefore, the Enquiry Officer/ Disciplinary Authority was under an obligation to record evidence and further afford an opportunity to the delinquent employee to defend himself and examine witnesses. He would submit that the Disciplinary Authority failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 7 of Rules 1999, therefore, the order Annexure-P/1 as well as the Appellate Order are bad in law. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that, after a full-fledged enquiry, the order of recovery was passed against the father of the petitioner. They would submit that a show-cause was issued, which was duly replied to. It is contended that the father of the petitioner was directed to submit relevant documents before the Enquiry Officer but he failed to do so and therefore, an adverse inference was drawn against him. They would further submit that the Commissioner has passed a well-reasoned order and that the grounds raised by the petitioner have already been considered. 4 Accordingly, they would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 5) Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, reads as under: “7. Procedure for imposing major penalties: (1) No order, imposing on a member of the Panchayat Service, any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (via) of Rule 5 shall be passed except after a formal inquiry is held as far as may be, in the manner hereinafter provided. (2) When an order for formal inquiry has been made, the disciplinary authority shall frame Definite charges on the basis of allegations and shall communicate such charges, alongwith the statement of the allegations, to the member of the Panchayat Service and also require him to submit, within such time as may be specified a written statement of defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. (3) The person against whom inquiry is to be held shall, for the purpose of preparing to defence, be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such records as he may specify : Provided that such permission may be refused if, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in the opinion of the Enquiry' Officer such records are not relevant for the purpose or it is against the public interest to allow his access thereto. (4) On receipt of the written statement of defence or if any such statement is not received within the time specified, the disciplinary authority may himself enquire into such of the charges as are not admitted or appoint an Enquiry Officer to hold the inquiry and forward to him his report and, if advised, his recommendation alongwith all the inquiry papers. 5 (5) The disciplinary authority may nominate any person to present the case in support of the charges before the Enquiry Officer. The member of the Panchayat Service may present his case with the assistance of any other Panchayat Servant of State Government Servant approved by the Enquiry Officer but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose, unless the person nominated by the disciplinary authority as aforesaid is a legal practitioner or unless the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits. (6) If the servant of the Panchayat Service desires to be heard in person, he shall be so heard. If he so desires or if the disciplinary authority so directs, an oral enquiry shall be held by the Enquiry Officer. At such inquiry, evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted and the person charged shall be entitled to cross examine the witness, to give evidence in person, to produce documentary evidence, if any and to have such witness called as he may wish : Provided that the Enquiry Officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. (7) At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer shall prepare a report of the inquiry, recording his findings on each of the charges together with reasons therefor. (8) The proceedings conducted against the persons charged shall contain a sufficient record of :- (i) the charges framed against such person and the statement of allegations; (ii) the written statement of defence if any; (iii) the oral evidence taken in the course of the inquiry; (iv) the documentary evidence considered in the course of the inquiry; (v) the orders, if any, made by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority, as the case may be, with regard to the inquiry; (vi) a report setting out the findings on each charge and the reasons therefor. 6 (9) The Enquiry Officer, if he is other than the disciplinary authority, shall submit the records of the proceedings mentioned in clause (8) above to the disciplinary authority without recommendation relating to the penalty to be imposed. The disciplinary authority shall consider the record of the enquiry and its findings on each charge, having regard to the findings on the charges and the record (if the proceedings) if he is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of Rule 5 should be imposed, it shall furnish to the person charged a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer, and where the disciplinary authority is not the Enquiry Officer a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. (10) The disciplinary authority shall consider the representation, it any, made by the person charged in response to the notice and determine the penalty, if any, should be imposed and shall pass appropriate order on the case. (11) The orders passed by the disciplinary authority shall be communicated lo the member of the Panchayat Service, who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer and where disciplinary authority is not the Enquiry Officer, a statement of its findings together with the brief reasons for disagreement, if tiny, with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, unless they have already been supplied to the person charged.” 6) In the present case, a show-cause notice was issued to the father of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner filed a reply denying the allegations. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. Since the allegations were denied by the father of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer should have examined the witnesses in order to prove the allegations against him and to fulfill the requirement contemplated 7 under Rule 7(6) of the Rules, 1999. According to the proviso appended to Rule 7(6) of the Rules, 1999, if the Enquiry Officer refuses to call the witnesses, he is required to assign reasons for such refusal. In the present case, no reasons were assigned by the Enquiry Officer and the witnesses were not examined. 7) According to Rule 7(8) of the Rules, 1999, the proceedings conducted against the persons charged shall contain a sufficient record of :- (i) the charges framed against such person and the statement of allegations; (ii) the written statement of defence if any; (iii) the oral evidence taken in the course of the inquiry; (iv) the documentary evidence considered in the course of the inquiry; (v) the orders, if any, made by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority, as the case may be, with regard to the inquiry; (vi) a report setting out the findings on each charge and the reasons therefor.” However, in the present case there is neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence to hold the father of the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Since the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure-P/1) and the subsequent order (Annexure-P/2) are hereby quashed. Consequences to follow. 8 8) Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi