1 2025:CGHC:2437 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2232 of 2019 1 - Jaimangal Ram S/o Shri Ramlal Aged About 34 Years Caste - Majhi (Reserved Schedule Tribe), Occupation - Panchayat Secretary (Terminated) R/o Village - Kotchhal, Post Jamkani, Tahsil - Seetapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Social Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralay, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner (Revenue Department) Ambikapur Division Surguja Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Seetapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Seetapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. …...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents/State No.1 to 3 : Mr. Amandeep Singh, P.L. for Respondent No.4 : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : None present. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 15/01/2025 1. Petitioner by this petition has questioned the legality and sustainability of the order dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No.2 dismissing the appeal as also the order dated 09.07.2018 Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.17 11:20:32 +0530 2 (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent No.4 (terminating the service of petitioner). 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the appeal preferred by petitioner before respondent No.2 against the order of termination of service by respondent No.4 under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1999’) was dismissed only on the ground that petitioner is having efficacious remedy of appeal and has also granted liberty in this regard, however, petitioner instead of submitting appeal as provided under Rule 15 of the Rules, 1999, has filed this petition directly before this Court, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. 3. Considering the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.4 in light of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the grounds raised in this petition, the order of termination is of the year 2018, writ petition is filed on 19.03.2019 and is pending since last more than four years before this Court. Further specific ground is raised in this petition that though charge memo has been issued to petitioner by Disciplinary Authority, however, without conducting departmental enquiry, order of termination from service has been passed, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I am not inclined to accept the objection raised by learned counsel for respondent No.4, the petition is being considered on merits. 5. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary and posted at Village Panchayat – 3 Kerju, Janpad Panchayat- Sitapur. While he was posted on the said village panchayat, petitioner was served with show cause notice seeking explanation on his unauthorized absence and thereafter, petitioner was served with charge-memo on 05.05.2018. Petitioner thereafter was terminated from service on account of his unauthorized absence invoking the provisions of the Rules, 1999. The order of termination was put to challenge by way of filing appeal under Section 91 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, which came to be dismissed on the ground that petitioner is having alternate efficacious remedy of appeal under the Rules, 1991 and has also granted liberty. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that reply to the show cause notice issued regarding unauthorized absence of petitioner was submitted by petitioner on 02.05.2018, however, without considering the same in a proper manner, petitioner was served with charge-memo under the Rules, 1999 read with the rules of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal), Rules, 1966 mentioning that departmental enquiry is proposed against him, however, after issuance of charge-sheet, no enquiry was conducted against petitioner and straightaway, order of termination is passed which is in violation of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. The order of termination of petitioner is without giving him an opportunity of hearing, therefore, it is in violation of principles of natural justice, hence, it be set-aside. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that procedure as provided under the Rules, 1999 was followed, finding that petitioner was unauthorized absent, initially he was served with 4 show cause notice and dissatisfying with the reply to the show cause notice, charge-memo was issued to petitioner. Petitioner has not submitted any defence to the charges levelled against him on or before the date fixed as per notice dated 02.07.2018. Respondent No.4 considering entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of charges levelled against him has passed the order of termination (Annexure P-2). There is no illegality in passing the order impugned. 8. Learned counsel for respondents/State submits that action against petitioner is taken by respondent No.4. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 10. Undisputedly, petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary by respondent No.4 and he was posted at Village Panchayat Kerju. It is also not in dispute that petitioner was served with a show cause notice for his absence from the duties and as stated by learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner has submitted reply to the show cause notice issued to him, which was received in the office of respondent No.4 on 02.05.2018 vide Annexure P-7. Petitioner was thereafter served with charge-memo on 05.05.2018 mentioning the charges as also mentioning the list of documents and the witnesses. It is the claim of respondent No.4 that petitioner has not submitted his defence to the charges levelled against him and thereafter, the order was passed. 11. The initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an employee in the Panchayat service, is governed by the Rules of 1999. Rule 5 of the Rules, 1999 envisages penalties in which under Rule 5 (a) provides for 5 minor penalty and under Rule 5 (b) provides for major penalty. Rule 6 envisages authority to impose penalties and the Disciplinary Authority is prescribed under Appendix appended to the Rules, 1999. 12. Undisputedly for Class -III and Class -IV employee, who are under the control of Zila Panchayat, for the purpose of imposing major penalty, General Administration Committee is prescribed as Disciplinary Authority. Petitioner is imposed with major penalty of termination from service, however, perusal fo the order Annexure P- 2 would show that order of termination is passed by Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat and no decision has been taken by General Administration Committee, therefore, the order of termination in view of the Rules 6 and Appendix appended to the Rules, 1999 prima facie is without any authority of law. 13. Further perusal of the documents enclosed along with writ petition as also the reply would show that after issuance of charge-memo, no departmental enquiry in accordance with Rule -7 has been initiated against petitioner. Even if the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.4 is to be accepted that petitioner failed to submit written statement of defence to the charges levelled against him, then also in view of the specific provisions under Sub- Rule 4 of Rule 7, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have himself enquire into such charges as are not admitted or appoint an Enquiry Officer to hold the enquiry and forward to him his report. No such procedure was adopted prior to passing of order of termination. Rule 7 (4) of The Rules, 1999 is extracted below for ready reference. “7. Procedure for imposing major penalties. :-- 6 (1) x x x x x (2) x x x x x (3) x x x x x (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 along with all the inquiry papers.” 14. In the aforementioned facts of the case as also the provisions of the Rules, 1999 as discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.4 is without any authority of law, in contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 and in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 15. For the forgoing discussions made here-in-above, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders (Annexure P-1 and P-2) are set-aside. 16. Consequent to allowing of writ petition, petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service. He will be entitled for all consequential benefits. As the writ petition is allowed on technical grounds, respondents will be at liberty to initiate proceedings pursuant to the charge memo issued to petitioner in accordance with law, if they so desire. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram