1 2025:CGHC:32919 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7389 of 2018 1 - Smt. Gayatri Upadyay W/o Shri Anupam Upadhayay Aged About 35 Years Occupation Shikshak Panchayat Govt. Middle School, Village - Amali, Block Education Officer, Kota, District Bilaspur. Permanent Address - C/o Shri T.N. Upadhyay, Vasant Vihar Colony, Ward No. 15, Behind Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur ., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Block Education Officer Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Head Master Govt. Middle School, Village - Amali, Block - Kota, District Bilaspur., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sahdev Yadav, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. S.B. Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 15.07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the 2 following relief(s):- “a. That in the facts and circumstances of the case it be held that there was no ground with the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioner under rule 3 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Conduct) rule, 1998 and in exercise of power of rule 6 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and appeal) rule. 1999 and imposed penalty under rule imposed penalty rule 5 (B) of aforesaid rule. 1999 after a resolution of passed on 22.06.2016 by the General Governing Body of Jila Panchayat, Bilaspur and thereafter services of petitioner was ferminated vide Order No.3101/JP/Estb./2016-17 Dated-21.07.2016 (ΑΝNEXURE P-1) without affording proper opportunity. b. That this Hon'ble court may kindly pleased to quash the termination order ANNEXURE P-1 and be declared as arbitrary. illegal, malatide and unconstitutional which is against the natural justice. c. That the Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order ANNEXURE P-1and issue any other appropriate writ or writs, order or orders. direction or directions which may be expedient and necessary in the nature and circumstances of the case. d. Cost of the petition is allowed to the petitioner.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner joined as Shiksha Karmi/Science Teacher at Government Middle School, Amali, Tehsil Kota, District Bilaspur, pursuant to the order dated 07.02.2009. An application was moved by the petitioner for transfer of services to the District Raipur as her husband was posted in the District Raipur. A show- 3 cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.10.2014, according to the provisions of Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Services (Conduct) Rules, 1998 (for short ‘the Rules of 1998’), as she remained unauthorizedly absent from 18.06.2013 to 21.10.2014 without prior permission of the authorities. 3. The petitioner filed a reply to the show-cause notice, wherein it was stated that she was staying along with her husband at Raipur, and she was sick at that time, and her daughter was born on 18.09.2014. The petitioner approached respondent No.2 on 11.11.2014 and sought permission to join the services. Respondent No.2 sent a joining order dated 27.04.2015, but it was not served upon the petitioner; therefore, she could not join the services. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 05.10.2015. She again moved an application seeking permission to join her services on 06.04.2016. On 08.04.2016, the petitioner sent an application through registered post showing her willingness to join the services. 4. The petitioner was provided the opportunity of a personal hearing by respondent No.2 on 15.05.2016. The petitioner also moved an application before the Collector on 18.06.2018. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 21.07.2016 terminated the services of the petitioner, and against the 4 said order, this petition has been preferred. 5. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a major penalty has been inflicted on the petitioner pursuant to Rule 5(b) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short ‘the Rules of 1999’) pursuant to a resolution passed by the General Administration Committee of Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur dated 22.06.2016. He would further submit that no opportunity of hearing was afforded and no departmental inquiry was conducted before inflicting the major penalty. He would contend that the petitioner approached respondent No.2 many times to join her services, but she was not permitted. He would pray to quash the order dated 21.07.2016 vide Annexure P/1. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Tiwari. They would submit that there is an efficacious alternative remedy to prefer an appeal against the order dated 21.07.2016 before the Appellate Authority. It is also argued that the order was passed by respondent No.2 on 21.07.2016, and this petition was preferred on 12.10.2018, and the delay part has not been explained properly. They would further submit that the petitioner remained continuously absent from services from 18.06.2013 to 5 21.10.2014. They would contend that the conduct of the petitioner was in contravention of Rules 3 & 6 of the Rules of 1998, and a resolution was also passed by the General Administration Committee of Zila Panchayat according to the provisions of the Rules of 1999. They would also contend that a sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, and when the petitioner failed to join her services, a decision was taken. They would submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 8. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1998 states that every Panchayat servant shall maintain absolute integrity; maintain devotion to duty; and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Panchayat servant. 9. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1998 deals with proceeding on leave by panchayat servants. It states that no panchayat servant shall proceed on leave without prior sanction of the superior authorities, and in a case of emergency, the authority competent to sanction leave may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, accord ex-post facto sanction. 10. Rules 3 & 6 of the Rules of 1998 are reproduced herein below:- “3. General.-(1) Every panchayat servant shall at all times,- 6 (1) maintain absolute integrity: (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of Panchayat Servant. (2) (1) Every Panchayat Servant holding a supervisory post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all Panchayat Servants for the time being under his control and authority. (ii) No Panchayat Servant shall in the performance of hi official duties or in exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best Judgment except that when he is acting under the direction of his official superior and shall, where he is acting under such direction obtain the direction in writing, wherever practicable and wherever it is not practicable to obtain the direction in writing he shall obtain written confirmation of the direction as soon as possible. 6. Proceeding on leave by Panchayat Servants. No Panchayat Servant shall proceed on leave (casual or otherwise) before it has been sanctioned provided that in a case of emergency the authority competent to sanction leave may for reasons to be recorded in writing accord ex-post facto sanction for leave already availed of.” 11.Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1999 deals with major penalties. According to the appendix appended to the Rules of 1999, the Disciplinary Authority of Class-III and IV employees of the Panchayat is the General Administration Committee, and the Appellate Authority is the General Body. 12. In the present case, the petitioner remained absent for a considerable period from 18.06.2013. Show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner by respondent No.2. The decision to terminate the services of the petitioner was 7 taken pursuant to a resolution passed by the General Administration Committee dated 22.06.2016, and a specific order was issued by respondent No.2 on 21.07.2016. 13. The Rules of 1999 make it clear that the order imposing a major penalty would be appealable before the General Body. The petitioner has approached this Court on the ground that the opportunity of hearing was not afforded and no departmental inquiry was conducted according to Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. 14. The petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from duties for a period of more than 5 years. The petitioner failed to demonstrate reasons for her absence from her duties, and there is a statutory alternative remedy of appeal according to the Service Rules. Therefore, in my opinion, the present petition is not maintainable and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law. 15. The issue of limitation would be considered by the Appellate Authority taking a liberal approach, as the matter remained pending before this Court for a considerable period. 16. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha