1 2025:CGHC:42808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1711 of 2023 1 - Navin Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Bharat Lal Gupta Aged About 42 Years Earlier Teacher (Panchayat), Govt Middle School Mareya, Block Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh R/o Village And Post Pipartarai, Via Ganiyari, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Special Secretary, Panchayat Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Education Department Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Dirctorate Of Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Director Directorate Of Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Surguja, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 6 - Divisional Joint Director Surguja Division, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. C. J. K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/08/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.01.2023, whereby the appeal filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Surguja, was allowed by the Special Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Bhawan, in Case No. 05/2022. Consequently, the order passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, was set aside. In view of the foregoing, this writ petition is preferred seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 03.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.1. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Shikshakarmi Grade-II for the subject of Mathematics by the respondent No. 5 through an official order dated 07.02.2011. This appointment marked the commencement of the service of petitioner, during which he dutifully discharged his responsibilities with honesty and sincerity. The service of petitioner was subsequently confirmed by the authorities, as evidenced by an order dated 23.03.2013, solidifying his position and acknowledging his commitment and performance in the role. During his tenure, the petitioner suffered from serious health issues, including Ulcerative Polyps and Hepatitis-B. These medical conditions necessitated medical examination and intervention. The petitioner was examined by the District Medical Board, which documented the extent of his ailments. In light of his health concerns, the petitioner submitted an application for medical leave on 30.08.2017. However, this application for leave remained 3 undecided for an extended period, causing uncertainty regarding his employment status. Subsequently, on 05.07.2018, having regained medical fitness, the petitioner formally applied for reinstatement along with submitting a fitness certificate as proof of his ability to resume duties. Despite the efforts of petitioner to rejoin his service, on 09.07.2018, the respondent authorities terminated his services under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. This termination was effected without following due process, as no show cause notice was issued nor was any departmental inquiry conducted, in clear violation of Rule 7 concerning the imposition of major penalties. The petitioner contends that the termination order was passed arbitrarily, without adherence to prescribed legal procedures. Challenging this unjust termination, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of the Surguja Division, Ambikapur. The Commissioner, upon reviewing the case, allowed the appeal vide order dated 18.01.2021, set aside the termination order, and directed the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner within 15 days along with all consequential benefits. Despite this clear directive, the respondent has failed to comply with the reinstatement order. In response, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Surguja, filed a revision against the order passed by Commissioner before the respondent No.1. The revisional authority, without duly considering the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, allowed the revision vide order dated 03.01.2023, thereby setting aside the order of the Commissioner and effectively reinstating the termination. The petitioner submits that this impugned order is legally flawed and contrary to established principles. Further, 4 notwithstanding the order passed by the Commissioner, the respondent authorities have not reinstated the petitioner. Despite repeated efforts by the petitioner to seek reemployment and comply with the reinstatement directive, the office of the Chief Executive Officer has consistently refused to allow the petitioner to join, citing the pendency of the revision filed. The petitioner, therefore, remains deprived of his rightful employment, back wages, and other consequential benefits, compelling the present writ petition for redressal of his grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the actions of the respondent authorities in terminating the services of petitioner are wholly illegal, arbitrary, and malafide. Such conduct is not only in violation of the statutory provisions but also runs contrary to established jurisprudence and fundamental constitutional principles of natural justice and fairness. The petitioner, having rendered sincere and diligent service over the years, has been subjected to an unjust and unlawful termination, which amounts to a grave miscarriage of justice. The termination order is bereft of any proper procedure and is clearly aimed at depriving the petitioner of his lawful rights without affording him an opportunity to defend himself. The learned Commissioner of Surguja Division, Ambikapur, has rightly observed and upheld that the order of termination passed by respondent No. 5 is in blatant violation of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The said rule mandates strict compliance with procedural safeguards before imposing major penalties such as termination. The failure of the respondents to adhere to these 5 mandatory procedural requirements renders the termination order void and without jurisdiction. The intervention of Commissioner in setting aside the termination order and directing reinstatement reflects a correct application of law and principles of natural justice, which the present respondents have unjustifiably ignored. It is further submitted that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned termination order, nor was any departmental enquiry conducted to ascertain the guilt or innocence of petitioner. This is a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was denied the basic right to be heard. The absence of any opportunity for the petitioner to present his case or defend himself before the disciplinary authority underscores the malafide and arbitrary nature of the impugned order. The Commissioner, Surguja Division, has rightly recognized this violation and quashed the termination, emphasizing that adherence to due process is not merely a formality but a constitutional imperative. Despite the clear and binding order of the Commissioner directing the reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits, the respondents have willfully failed to comply with the same. The petitioner has made repeated efforts to obtain relief and secure reinstatement, approaching the office of the Chief Executive Officer on several occasions. However, the respondents have unjustly and illegally refused to permit the petitioner to resume his duties, citing the pendency of a revision petition. This act of non- compliance amounts to willful disobedience of the order passed by Commissioner and further aggravates the grievances of petitioner. The refusal to reinstate the petitioner or provide back wages despite the clear directions issued by Commissioner is arbitrary, unjust, and 6 deserves the strongest condemnation by this Court. Lastly, it is contended that respondent No. 1 has acted without jurisdiction and in blatant disregard of the mandatory provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The impugned order dated 03.01.2023, passed without due consideration of the statutory rules and principles of natural justice, is manifestly illegal, arbitrary, and malafide. It disregards the binding order of the Commissioner and effectively deprives the petitioner of his fundamental right to livelihood and employment. The impugned order is unsustainable both in law and equity and, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to uphold the order of the Commissioner, direct immediate reinstatement of the petitioner along with full back wages and consequential benefits. 4. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and jointly submit that the primary contention of petitioner alleging non- compliance with the procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and the violation of principles of natural justice, is wholly misconceived, misleading, and devoid of merit. The respondent no. 5, being a constitutionally and legally established authority under Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter ‘Adhiniyam, 1993’), functioning under sub-section (2) of Section 10 thereof, has adhered strictly to the procedural safeguards mandated by law while imposing the penalty of termination against the petitioner. The respondent authority operates in a challenging and crucial role in overseeing the 7 development and governance of rural infrastructure through numerous Gram Panchayats under its jurisdiction. In this context, maintaining discipline and ensuring regular attendance of employees, especially those involved in critical functions such as education, is of paramount importance. The repeated unauthorized absences of petitioner, spanning significant periods without any intimation or sanctioned leave, severely disrupted the academic environment and educational services at the concerned Madhyamik Shala. It is submitted that contrary to the baseless allegations of petitioner, a detailed departmental enquiry was initiated by the answering respondent as per Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, which prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties. The enquiry process commenced with the issuance of multiple show cause notices to the petitioner, at every stage providing ample opportunity to explain and defend himself. The willful absenteeism of petitioner led to the issuance of a charge sheet, and subsequent hearings were conducted in accordance with due process. Specifically, the petitioner was appointed as Shikshakarmi Grade-II (Mathematics) on 07.02.2011 and posted at Madhyamik Shala Khodari, Block Udaypur, District Sarguja. It is undisputed that the petitioner remained unauthorized absent on multiple occasions, from 25.02.2012 to 02.03.2013 (eight days), from 27.06.2013 to 27.07.2013 (one month), and again from 01.08.2013 onwards, without any formal intimation or application for leave. These unauthorized absences materially impaired the educational functioning of the school and were duly reported by the School Management to the Gram Panchayat Palka and further escalated to the respondents. Upon receipt of such reports and complaints, the respondents acted in strict compliance with the 8 statutory mandate and initiated formal disciplinary proceedings. A show cause notice dated 06.11.2013 was issued to the petitioner, clearly stating that his conduct amounted to gross violation of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Conduct) Rules, 1998, warranting disciplinary action. Despite efforts to serve the notice at the registered address of petitioner, it remained unserved owing to his continuous absence from the place of residence, compelling the respondents to suspend the petitioner from service by order dated 26.12.2013. The disciplinary proceedings were further continued, with a formal charge-sheet issued on 01.02.2014 and responses invited from the petitioner. The petitioner, through various applications, sought reinstatement citing family reasons and ill-health, which were considered. Subsequently, he was reinstated on 09.05.2014, and a fresh departmental enquiry was initiated under the supervision of the Block Education Officer, with due appointment of an enquiry officer and presenting officer. The enquiry process involved recording statements of witnesses, examination of documentary evidence, and detailed scrutiny of the absenteeism of petitioner. The enquiry report, dated 22.04.2016, unequivocally established the habitual unauthorized absence of petitioner from duty, adversely impacting the educational delivery at the institution. The petitioner was given repeated opportunities to be heard, including a hearing notice dated 08.06.2016, to which he did not respond or appear. Despite the continuous lapse in attendance, the petitioner was again reminded of his obligations through multiple notices and show cause communications between 2016 and 2018. The claim of petitioner of ill-health was recorded, with supporting medical documents submitted; nevertheless, the petitioner failed to adequately justify or 9 regularize his unauthorized absences. His conduct contravened the fundamental principle of “no work, no pay,” and resulted in the deployment of an alternative teacher to maintain academic continuity. The case was placed before the General Administration Committee, Zila Panchayat, Sarguja, which deliberated extensively on the unauthorized absenteeism of petitioner and non-compliance despite warnings and chances for corrective action. The Committee passed a resolution recommending termination of the services of petitioner in accordance with Rule 5(b) of the Rules, 1999, reflecting the severity of the misconduct and its adverse impact on public service delivery. Pursuant to the above, the respondent No. 5 passed the impugned order of termination dated 09.07.2018. This order was a considered decision, arrived at after full compliance with the procedural safeguards, and following the exhaustive departmental enquiry process which afforded the petitioner every opportunity to defend himself, thereby upholding the principles of natural justice. The subsequent appeal filed by petitioner before the learned Commissioner, Surguja Division, was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2021, but notably, the Commissioner did not issue any notice for reply or hearing to the respondents, thereby not affording a fair opportunity to present the complete facts and records. Aggrieved by this, the answering respondent filed a revision petition before the learned Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development. Learned Principal Secretary, after due consideration of all documents, replies, and the submissions of both parties, passed a well-reasoned, bipartite order dated 03.01.2023, setting aside the order passed by Commissioner and reinstating the termination order as valid and legal. 10 The Principal Secretary unequivocally affirmed that the answering respondent had scrupulously followed due procedure and upheld the principles of natural justice prior to the termination of petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the contentions of petitioner regarding procedural irregularities and malafide actions are baseless and do not withstand scrutiny in the light of the voluminous documentary evidence and official records. The termination order was neither arbitrary nor mala fide but rather a necessary and lawful measure to uphold administrative discipline and public interest. In view of the above facts, procedural compliance, and consistent application of the rules, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and ought to be dismissed in limine. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders, and examined the record with due care. 6. The question that falls for consideration is whether the termination of the petitioner satisfies the requirements of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 ? 7. Rule 5(b)(vi) of the Rules of 1999 clearly prescribes removal from service as a major penalty. Rule 7 mandates that no major penalty can be imposed without a formal enquiry. Such an enquiry necessarily requires framing of definite charges, communication of allegations to the delinquent employee, opportunity to inspect records, oral hearing with right to cross-examine witnesses, submission of enquiry report, and supply of findings to the delinquent for his representation before passing of final orders. Rule 5 and Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh 11 Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 is quoted below for ready reference : 5. Penalties. - The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided by imposed on a member of the Panchayat Service namely :- xxx xxx xxx (b) Major Penalties- xxx xxx xxx (vi)Removal from service not disqualifying for future employment; 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. 12 (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. (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 :- 13 (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. (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 14 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. 8. In the present case, although respondents have referred to initiation of disciplinary proceedings, issuance of notices, and even preparation of an enquiry report, there is no material to show that the requirements of Rule 7 were complied with in their entirety. The record does not establish that the petitioner was furnished with the copy of enquiry report, that he was allowed to cross-examine witnesses, or that he was given adequate opportunity to defend himself as envisaged under Rule 7(6) and Rule 7(11). Thus, even if some form of enquiry was undertaken, it cannot be regarded as a formal departmental enquiry as mandated by the Rules. 9. A Division Bench of this Court, in Rooplal Nayak v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, reported in 2006 (4) M.P.H.T. 99 (C.G.), has clearly held that no major penalty, as prescribed under Rule 5(b) (iv) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, can be imposed on a member of the Panchayat service governed by the said Rules without conducting a regular departmental enquiry in accordance with Rule 7 thereof. 10. In an identical petition coordinate bench of this Court has passed an order in case of Prakash Chand Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WPS No.1846/2011 on 15/07/2015 and it was held as under:- 15 “(3)The short issue arisen for determination is - whether services of a Panchayat Secretary can be dispensed with or terminated without conducting any enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of the C.G. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (in short "the Rules, 1999")? (4)Admittedly, on certain allegations, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and eventually, an enquiry report was submitted vide Annexure R/4 and thereafter, show cause notice was issued to him on 28.04.2008 vide Annexure R/3, therefore before removing him the principles of natural justice have been complied with. However, at the same time, it is to be seen that a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Rooplal Nayak vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2006(4) M.P.H.T. 99 (C.G.) has held that any of the major penalty prescribed under Rule 5(b) (iv) of the Rules, 1999 cannot be imposed on a member of Panchayat service to whom the said Rules are applicable without conducting regular Departmental Enquiry as envisaged under 7 of the Rules, 1999. (5)In the case at hand, an enquiry officer was appointed, who conducted some sort of enquiry and submitted an enquiry report, however, that runs short of a departmental enquiry as contemplated under Rule 7. The said provisions uses the words "formal inquiry" with further stipulation that when an order for 'formal enquiry has been made, the disciplinary authority shall frame Definite charges, communicate the same to the delinquent along with the statement of allegations, requiring him to submit within the specified time a written statement of defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. Thereafter, the defence is required to be permitted to inspect and take extracts from 16 the records, which can be refused for reasons to be recorded in writing. On submission of reply by the delinquent, the disciplinary authority may himself enquire or appoint an enquiry officer. Appointment of Presenting Officer and seeking assistance of some other officers by the delinquent is also contemplated therein. The enquiry officer is also enabled to record evidence and thereafter, at the conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer is supposed to prepare enquiry report, the copy of which is required to be furnished to the delinquent. Thus, the 'formal inquiry' envisaged under the Rules is akin to the procedure prescribed for a regular enquiry under Rule 14 of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd., reported in (2021) 10 SCC 401 has further held that an action taken in breach of natural justice or de hors jurisdiction warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the termination order dated 09.07.2018 suffers from violation of Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules and breach of principles of natural justice. The revisional order dated 03.01.2023, which affirms such termination, is equally vitiated. The Commissioner, while allowing the appeal on 18.01.2021, though procedurally at fault for not issuing notice to respondents, had rightly recognized the illegality in the termination order. 13. Having regard to the settled law and the facts of the present case, this Court holds that the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Consequently, the 17 respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with continuity of service. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has not rendered actual service during the period of his termination, he shall be entitled to 50% of back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement. 14. It is made clear that the competent authority shall be at liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, if so advised, strictly in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 and by adhering to the principles of natural justice. In the event such proceedings are initiated, the same shall be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed in part. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Saxena JUDGE