Page 1 {WPS No.8771/2023} CGHC010366292023 2026:CGHC:28149 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8771 of 2023 Narendra Kumar Rautkar S/o Shri Bareek Rao Rautkar Aged About 56 Years, R/o Anand Vihar Colony, Ward No.9, Behind Collector Colony, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Nayak, Advocate. For Res No.1 & 2 for State : Mr. Siddharth Sharma with Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyers. For Res No.4 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey with Mr. Shrijan Pandey, Advocates. For Res No.3 : None though notice has been served. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 08/07/2026 Page 2 {WPS No.8771/2023} 1) By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 07.08.2023 (Annexure-P/17) issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Kabirdham (Respondent No.3), by which the departmental enquiry report (Annexure-P/16) was accepted, finding the petitioner guilty of bypassing statutory rules to propose the unauthorized and illegal absorption/regularization of 5 daily wage employees. Subsequently, an order for the recovery of Rs.13,77,869/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Seventy-Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Nine only) was passed against the petitioner, which is amount of salaries and arrears disbursed to the said 5 employees. Pursuant to this direction, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bodla, District Kabirdham (Respondent No. 4) ordered the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount vide order dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure-P/18). Hence, the petitioner seeks following relief:- "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to call the entire records of the case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 07/08/2023 (ANNEXURE P-17) passed by respondent no. 3. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned memo dated 29/08/2023 (ANNEXURE P-18) passed by respondent no. 4. 10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as Hon'ble Court may deem fit & proper in the circumstances of the case." 2) The factual background of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk on a temporary basis in the office of Janpad Page 3 {WPS No.8771/2023} Panchayat Bodla vide order dated 26.03.1992. On 07.12.2004, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II, and on 24.07.2017, he was promoted to the post of Accountant in Janpad Panchayat Bodla. On 28.08.2018, a meeting of the General Administrative Committee of Janpad Panchayat Bodla was held, wherein a regularization order for 5 daily-wage employees was passed. However, one Kaleshwar Sahu submitted a complaint alleging that irregularities had been committed in Janpad Panchayat Bodla with regard to these 5 daily-wage employees and that the regularization order was passed without following the due process of law. 2.1) Consequent to the said complaint, a show-cause notice (Annexure- P/7) was issued to the petitioner on 31.07.2021 regarding the unauthorized absorption/regularization of the said daily-wage employees, which was replied to by the petitioner on 08.08.2021 (Annexure-P/8) denying the allegations levelled against him. Subsequently, vide order dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure-P/9), the Collector, District Kabirdham suspended the petitioner on account of alleged negligence in work and financial irregularities. A charge-sheet was served upon him on 28.08.2021 (Annexure-P/10). The petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure-P/11) on 13.09.2021, denying the charges levelled against him. However, the Collector, Kabirdham (Respondent No. 2) found the reply of the petitioner unsatisfactory and passed an order (Annexure-P/12) on 16.09.2021 initiating a Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner. Vide order dated Page 4 {WPS No.8771/2023} 03.03.2022 (Annexure-P/13), the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Kabirdham revoked the suspension of the petitioner on the basis of application submitted by him and posted him at the office of Janpad Panchayat Bodla until further orders. 2.2) On 21.04.2023, the Enquiry Officer vide Annexure-P/14 sought an explanation from the petitioner in respect of the charges leveled, which was replied to by the petitioner on 27.04.2023 vide Annexure-P/15. On the same day i.e. 27.04.2023, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report to the Collector, Kabirdham vide Annexure-P/16. Based on the said enquiry report, the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Kabirdham (Respondent No. 3) passed the order dated 07.08.2023 (Annexure-P/17), inflicting the penalty of recovery of Rs. 13,77,869/-, which is equivalent to the arrears and salaries disbursed to the 5 daily- wage employees. Consequently, a recovery order dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure-P/18) was passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bodla (Respondent No. 4), directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.13,77,869/-1 with Janpad Panchayat Bodla. Hence, this petition. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suspension order dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure-P/9) and the enquiry order dated 16.09.2021 (Annexure-P/12) against the petitioner were passed by the Collector, Kabirdham. Even the charge-sheet was issued under the signature of the Collector, Kabirdham, and the enquiry report was likewise submitted to him by the Enquiry Officer. However, since the petitioner is an employee of 1 Wrongly mentioned as Rs.1,33,77,869 in the order dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure-P/8) Page 5 {WPS No.8771/2023} Janpad Panchayat Bodla, as per the Appendix to Rule 2(c) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (henceforth "Rules, 1999"), the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bodla was the competent Disciplinary Authority. In the present case, no such order was passed by the competent Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner, instead, he was merely appointed as the Presenting Officer by the Collector, Kabirdham vide Annexure-P/12. Thus, the alleged Departmental Enquiry initiated against the petitioner stands contrary to the law and procedure prescribed under the Rules, 1999. 3.1) Learned counsel further submits that neither any departmental witness was examined nor any document was exhibited by the Presenting Officer/Enquiry Officer during the course of the enquiry. Immediately upon receiving the explanation from the petitioner, the enquiry report was prepared and sent to the Collector, Kabirdham vide Annexure-P/16. Thus, the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1999 has completely been bypassed by the Respondent Authorities. 3.2) Learned counsel also submits that though the petitioner has been inflicted with a penalty to deposit Rs.13,77,869/- by order dated 07.08.2023 (Annexure-P/17), no specific charge was levelled against him in this regard. Moreover, Respondent No.3 - the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Kabirdham imposed the said penalty after obtaining approval from the Collector, Kabirdham. Since Respondent No.3 was also not the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, the penalty imposed is a direct violation of the provisions and procedure prescribed in the Rules, 1999. He lastly submits that since the entire Departmental Enquiry conducted against the petitioner Page 6 {WPS No.8771/2023} is against the law and established procedure, the order dated 07.08.2023 (Annexure-P/17) and the subsequent recovery order dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure-P/18) passed by Respondents No. 3 and 4, respectively, are liable to be set aside. 4) None appeared for Respondent No. 3, despite notice having been duly served. 5) Learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2 (State) and Respondent No. 4 have filed their return, which appears to be similar in stance. Learned counsel for Respondents No.1, 2, and 4 jointly submit that after receiving a complaint against the petitioner, a preliminary enquiry was conducted, wherein it was reported that the petitioner had made a proposal for the regularization of 5 daily-wage employees to Class-III and Class IV (Peon) posts in Janpad Panchayat Bodla in violation of various rules. Following the said enquiry report, an explanation was sought from him, which was subsequently placed before a 3-Member Committee. The Committee, after examining the issue along with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner not only made the proposal for regularization of those 5 employees but also managed to get the regularization order passed by the Chief Executive Officer merely in anticipation of approval from the prescribed Authority, which has not been approved to date. 5.1) It is further submitted that as the aforesaid proposal was made by the petitioner without obtaining approval from the Higher Authority, therefore, he was served with a charge-sheet and a Departmental Enquiry was conducted against him, wherein he was found guilty of misconduct and Page 7 {WPS No.8771/2023} financial loss to the Government vide Annexure-P/16. The said report was accepted by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Kabirdham, and finally, the penalty was inflicted upon the petitioner vide Annexure-P/17, directing him to deposit Rs. 13,77,869/-. Therefore, they contend that the proceedings are just and proper. 5.2) Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4, while referring to Rule 6 of the Rules, 1999, also submits that since the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Kabirdham, and the Collector, Kabirdham are higher/superior Authorities, they were fully entitled to pass order of Departmental Enquiry and impose the penalty. In view of these submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents prays for the dismissal of the writ petition. 6) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with the writ petition. 7) Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk on a temporary basis at Janpad Panchayat Bodla on 26.03.1992, and was later promoted to Assistant Grade-II on 07.12.2004. At the relevant time, he was promoted and posted as an Accountant, which is a Class-III post. On 28.08.2018, the General Administrative Committee of Janpad Panchayat Bodla passed an order regularizing 5 daily-wage employees, after which a complaint was received from one Kaleshwar Sahu alleging that the regularization had been done without following due process. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.07.2021. Though petitioner has denied the allegations, the Collector of District Kabirdham suspended him on 19.08.2021 on grounds of alleged negligence and financial irregularities. Page 8 {WPS No.8771/2023} 8) Thereafter, a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 28.08.2021 under the signature of the Collector, Kabirdham. The petitioner replied to the same vide Annexure-P/11, which was found unsatisfactory. Consequent thereto, the Collector ordered a Departmental Enquiry on 16.09.2021 vide Annexure- P/12 and appointed an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer to carry out further proceedings. Subsequently, the Enquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry Report to the Collector vide Annexure-P/16 on 27.04.2023. On the basis of approval by the Collector, Kabirdham, the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Kabirdham issued an order dated 07.08.2023 (Annexure-P/17), inflicting a penalty for the recovery of Rs. 13,77,869/-, which is the amount of arrears and salaries disbursed to the said 5 daily-wage employees. This resulted in a final recovery direction issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat Bodla on 29.08.2023 (Annexure-P/18), ordering the petitioner to deposit the said amount. Thus it is explicit that the entire Departmental Enquiry was conducted under the supervision and orders of the Collector Kabirdham right from its inception until the imposition of the penalty. 9) Undisputedly, the petitioner was a Class-III category employee of Janpad Panchayat Bodla, District Kabirdham. 10) A perusal of the Appendix to Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1999 makes it apparent that the Collector, Kabirdham was not the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. Instead, as per the Appendix to Rule 2(c), the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bodla is designated as the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. In this regard, it would be appropriate to reproduce Rule 2(c) and its Appendix, which read as follows: Page 9 {WPS No.8771/2023} "2. Definitions.- (a) *** *** *** (b) *** *** *** (c) "Disciplinary Authority" in relation to the imposition of penalty on a member of the Panchayat Service means the authority declared to be the disciplinary authority under the Appendix appended to these rules;" *** APPENDIX S. No. Class of Panchayats Class of Service Disciplinary Authority Kind of penalty referred to in rule 5 which may be imposed Appellate Authority (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1. Zila Panchayat/ Janpad Panchayat Class III and IV Chief Executive Officer General Administration Committee. Minor Penalty Major Penalty General Administratio n Committee. General body 2. Zila Panchayat/ Janpad Panchayat Class II General Administration Committee. Minor Penalty General body 3. Zila Panchayat Class II General body Major Penalty Divisional Commissioner 4. Janpad Panchayat Class II General body Major Penalty District Collector 5. Gram Panchayat Class IV Secretary Minor Penalty Gram Panchayat - - Class III General Administration Committee. Major Penalty General body - - General Administration Committee. Minor Penalty General body - - General body Major Penalty Sub Division- al Officer (Revenue) Page 10 {WPS No.8771/2023} 11) Bare perusal of the aforesaid provision and Appendix makes it clear that the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bodla was the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. However, he did not initiate or conduct the Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner, rather vide Annexure-P/12 dated 16.09.2021, the Collector, Kabirdham appointed him as the Presenting Officer in the Departmental Enquiry proceedings. This order passed by the Collector, Kabirdham runs completely contrary to the Rules, 1999. 12) Further, pursuant to the said Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner has been inflicted with a minor penalty of recovery of Rs.13,77,869/-, which is said to be equivalent to the salary and arrears paid to those 5 daily-wage employees who were regularized allegedly against the rules. However, no specific charge was levelled against the petitioner in this regard, instead, it appears only a vague charge was levelled that he had caused financial loss to the State. It is well-settled law that an order imposing recovery or punishment is legally unsustainable if it is passed without explicitly framing a specific charge of causing financial loss to the Government against the concerned employee. 13) In the case of Union of India and others Vs. Chattar (2009) 12 SCC 78, while considering a case of minor penalty, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referencing established precedents, reiterated that even in a domestic enquiry, the charge must be clear, definite, and specific, as it would be difficult for any delinquent employee to meet vague charges. The evidence adduced should not be perfunctory, and even if the delinquent employee does not raise a defense or protest against the vagueness of the charges, it does not save the enquiry from being vitiated. This is because fair play in action is a mandatory Page 11 {WPS No.8771/2023} prerequisite, particularly in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. It has been also reiterated that it is impermissible to hold an enquiry on a vague charge, as it deprives the delinquent employee of an opportunity to make an effective defense since they may not be aware of the exact nature of the allegations to put up a proper rebuttal. 14) In the present case, a perusal of the enquiry report appended as Annexure- P/16 reveals that the Enquiry Officer merely received the petitioner's explanation vide Annexure-P/15, wherein the petitioner has not accepted his guilt in clear terms, rather he has denied charges levelled against him. 15) Here it would be appropriate to go through the Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, where the procedure has been prescribed for imposing a major penalty, which 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 Page 12 {WPS No.8771/2023} 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)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. Page 13 {WPS No.8771/2023} (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. (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. Page 14 {WPS No.8771/2023} (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." 16) It is explicit from the above text that under Rule 7, a major penalty requires issuing definite charges to the employee for a written defense before holding an inquiry. The employee has the right to inspect records, present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses during a hearing. The Enquiry Officer then submits a findings report to the disciplinary authority, who must share it with the employee, consider their final representation, and issue a reasoned decision. The non-obstante clause under Rule 8(1)(b) stipulates that even for imposing a minor penalty, the procedure prescribed in sub-rules (1) to (11) of Rule 7 must be followed. The aforesaid rule reads as follows: "8. Procedure for imposing minor penalties- (1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iii) of Rule 5 shall be passed except after :- (a)the person charged is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which such action is proposed to be taken and is given an opportunity to make any representation which he may wish to make; and Page 15 {WPS No.8771/2023} (b) such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority; Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub- rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if made by the Panchayat Servant, under clause (b) of that sub-rule to withhold increments of pay or stagnation allowance, and such with holding of increment of pay or stagnation allowance is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Panchayat Servant or to withhold increment of pay or stagnation allowance, for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay or stagnation allowance, with commutative effect for any period, an enquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (1) to (11) of Rule 7, before making any order imposing on the Panchayat Servant any such penalty." 17) However, in the present case, no Departmental witnesses were examined, nor were any documents allegedly prepared by the petitioner exhibited or proved during the course of the enquiry. Furthermore, neither the charges, the charge-sheet, nor the enquiry report mentions which specific rule or rules were violated by the petitioner while making the proposal for the regularization of the said employee. 18) It is well-settled law that unless charges are expressly accepted, the employer cannot establish misconduct based on mere documentary evidence alone. The Department must examine witnesses to prove the contents of those documents, as the delinquent employee has the right to cross-examine all departmental witnesses. 19) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and Others Vs. Kharak Singh {(2008) 8 SCC 2236}, while considering its various judgments has held in Para 15 as Under:- Page 16 {WPS No.8771/2023} "15) From the above decisions, the following principles would emerge: i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. ii) *** *** *** iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged, give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any. " 20) Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Prakash Saini Vs. Managing Director, UP Cooperative Federation Ltd. {2026 SCC OnLine SC 505}, has made following observation in Para 17 which reads thus:- "17. From the decisions of this Court in Sur Enamel (supra) and Kharak Singh (supra), followed in Chamoli District Cooperative (supra), which deals with similar service rules as are applicable here, it is now settled that unless the charged employee accepts his guilt in clear terms, an enquiry on the charges drawn against him would have to be held. In the enquiry, the employer /department would have to take steps first to lead Page 17 {WPS No.8771/2023} evidence against the workmen / delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross examine those witnesses. Only thereafter, the workmen / delinquent shall be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and/ or submit an explanation about the evidence led against him. Even in a case based solely on documentary evidence, unless the relied upon documents are admitted by the charged employee, a witness would have to be examined to prove those documents and when so examined, the witness would have to be tendered for cross-examination." 21) In light of the aforesaid principles and considering the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, the petitioner (delinquent employee) had not accepted his guilt in clear terms, but had rather denied it. Despite this, the Department neither examined any witnesses nor exhibited any documents, and failed to prove which specific rule or rules were violated by the petitioner while making the alleged proposal for regularization. Instead, immediately upon receiving the explanation (Annexure-P/15) from the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer prepared the enquiry report on the very same day i.e. 27.04.2023 and forwarded it to the Collector, District Kabirdham. Thus, it is clear that the Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner without following due procedure of law, and the same was done in total violation of the principles of natural justice. 22) Apart from the above, learned counsel for the respondents referred to Rule 6 of the Rules, 1999 to argue that the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Kabirdham, and the Collector, Kabirdham were Higher/Superior Authorities and were therefore entitled to order a Departmental Enquiry and impose a penalty. Page 18 {WPS No.8771/2023} 23) Before addressing this contention and determining the competency of the Collector, Kabirdham, and the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Kabirdham, it is necessary to examine the enabling statutory framework. For this purpose, Rule 6 of the Rules of 1999 is reproduced below: "6. Authority to impose penalties. - Subject to the provisions of these rules, the disciplinary authority or any authority to whom such authority is subordinate, may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 5 on any servant of the Panchayat Service to the extent shown against in the Appendix appended to these rules." 24) The argument made by counsel for the respondents is contradicted by a reading of Rule 6 and the statutory Appendix. Rule 6 explicitly states that a subordinate or superior authority may only impose penalties "to the extent shown against in the Appendix appended to these rules." A perusal of the Appendix clarifies that for Class-III employees of a Janpad Panchayat, the Chief Executive Officer of that specific Janpad Panchayat is designated as the competent Disciplinary Authority for minor penalties, whereas the General Administration Committee is vested with the jurisdiction for major penalties. Neither Rule 6 nor the Appendix provides a blanket authorization for higher administrative authorities, such as the Collector or the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Panchayat, to completely usurp the original jurisdiction of the designated Disciplinary Authority, particularly regarding the issuance of a show-cause notice, the initiation of a Departmental Enquiry, or the issuance of a charge-sheet. Under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1999, Superior Authority is only empowered to impose the specific penalties enumerated in Rule 5 of the Page 19 {WPS No.8771/2023} Rules 1999. Hence, the contention made by the learned counsel for the respondents is misconceived and legally untenable. 25) Furthermore, in the considered opinion of this Court, a superior authority to whom the original disciplinary authority is subordinate may step in only under exceptional exigencies, such as when the post of the designated Disciplinary Authority is vacant or the official is otherwise unavailable. To permit higher/superior authorities to routinely usurp this power in ordinary circumstances would invite administrative chaos and result in conflicting, inconsistent orders across parallel authorities, thereby defeating the certainty of the statutory framework. 26) Moreover, the Appendix, read along with Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1999, specifically provides that the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat will be the Disciplinary Authority for Class-III and Class-IV employees. Therefore, the Collector or the Chief Executive Officer of the Jila Panchayat cannot usurp the whole power of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat under the garb of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1999. Even otherwise, Rule 6 only delegates power to the superior officer in respect of the penalty itself and not in respect of holding the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, on this count as well, the contention raised by the respondents that the Collector, Kabirdham has the competence to order a disciplinary enquiry and issue charges is unsustainable. 27) In view of the discussion made here-in-above, in the considered opinion of this Court, both the impugned order dated 07.08.2023 (Annexure-P/17) passed by Respondent No.3 and the order dated 29.08.2023 Page 20 {WPS No.8771/2023} (Annexure-P/18) passed by Respondent No.4 suffer from perversity and illegality, and hence deserve to be, and are hereby, set aside. 28) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. 29) However, liberty is reserved to the Respondent/Authority to conduct a fresh Departmental Enquiry in accordance with the rules and law, if so advised. 30) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2026.07.14 10:21:53 +0530 Page 21 {WPS No.8771/2023} Head Note Unless a delinquent employee accepts his guilt in clear and unambiguous terms, the employer/department cannot establish misconduct based solely on documentary evidence. The employer/department is legally required to hold a proper enquiry, call witnesses to prove the contents of disputed documents, and tender those witnesses for cross-examination.