1 2025:CGHC:61601 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2085 of 2023 1 - Banjuram Mandawi S/o Jhaduram Mandawi Aged About 59 Years R/o Marrapitola (Tohe) P. O. Tohe, Tahsil Manpur District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Siddhant Kumar Das, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/12/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ quashing/set-aside the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the respondent no.1 (Annexure P/1) and direct the respondent no.1 to decide the matter on his own merits within stipulated time as this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the petitioner” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Secretary of Gram Panchayat in the year 2000 and, thereafter, was posted at various places, where he discharged his duties with utmost honesty and sincerity. However, on account of certain alleged irregularities, the petitioner was placed under suspension and was ultimately removed from service vide order dated 27.10.2016 (Annexure P/2). Aggrieved by the said removal, the petitioner approached the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribe Commission, which, after considering his grievance, issued a letter dated 27.06.2018 directing the Collector to take necessary steps, holding that the removal of the petitioner was illegal (Annexure P/3). Pursuant thereto, the Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Mohla, addressed a communication to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, recommending reconsideration of the petitioner’s case. Despite these developments, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner; however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2022 solely on the ground of delay, without taking into consideration the findings recorded by the Commission and the Sub- Divisional Officer (Annexure P/5). Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.05.2022 by granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy available under law (Annexure P/6). In pursuance thereof, the petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.1 (Annexure 3 P/7); however, the said revision was also dismissed vide order dated 06.09.2022 on the ground of delay, while observing that the petitioner was habitual in committing default, thereby giving rise to the present cause of action (Annexure P/1). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 has committed a manifest error of law in dismissing the revision petition on a mere technical ground of delay, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is contended that despite clear recommendations made by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribe Commission, categorically indicating that the petitioner’s case required reconsideration on merits, the respondent No.1 failed to take the same into account and mechanically dismissed the revision without adjudicating the issues involved. Learned counsel further submits that this Court, while disposing of the earlier writ petition, had specifically granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority, and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner approached respondent No.1; however, the said authority again dismissed the revision on a technical ground, thereby frustrating the liberty granted by this Court. It is further argued that the respondent No.1 acted arbitrarily and illegally in branding the petitioner as habitual in filing delayed appeals/revisions, which finding is wholly unfounded and contrary to law. Learned counsel also submits that respondent No.2 committed a serious illegality in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal on the ground of delay, despite the fact that no illegality or irregularity was committed by the petitioner in discharge of his official duties, and therefore, the imposition of the major penalty of removal from service is grossly disproportionate and illegal. Lastly, it is 4 urged that the authorities failed to consider that the petitioner has remained out of service for a long period, and in such circumstances, dismissal of the revision on a technical ground is unjust, arbitrary and unsustainable in law, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned State counsel as also the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, while opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, jointly submit that the present petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the petitioner has failed to properly and specifically pray for the reliefs which are required to be sought in the present matter. It is contended that the pleadings and the prayer clause are vague, incomplete and do not disclose a clear or consequential relief against the impugned orders, and therefore, no effective adjudication can be undertaken by this Court. Learned counsel further submit that in the absence of an appropriate and specific prayer seeking setting aside of the impugned orders and consequential reliefs in accordance with law, the petitioner cannot be permitted to indirectly seek relief through submissions. It is argued that the law is well settled that a litigant must stand or fall on the basis of the pleadings and the reliefs expressly prayed for, and in the present case, the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean, complete and proper prayers. On this ground alone, without going into the merits of the case, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings and documents placed on record with due care. 6. From perusal of the pleadings and documents placed on record, it is 5 not in dispute that the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 27.10.2016 and thereafter he consistently pursued his remedies before different forums. It is also evident that the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribe Commission, after due consideration, recorded a finding that the removal of the petitioner was illegal and recommended reconsideration of his case. The said recommendation was further supported by the Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Mohla, who also communicated for reconsideration of the petitioner’s case. Despite these material developments, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay, without adverting to the merits or the recommendations made by the competent authorities. Even thereafter, though this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, the revision filed pursuant to such liberty was again dismissed by respondent No.1 on the technical ground of delay, coupled with an observation branding the petitioner as habitual in committing default. 7. 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 ? 8. 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 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 6 1999 is quoted below for ready reference : “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. 7 (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; 8 (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. 9 (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.” 9. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that dismissal of the revision petition on a mere technical ground, ignoring the recommendations of the Commission and the Sub-Divisional Officer, has resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioner. The approach adopted by respondent No.1 appears to be hyper- technical and has the effect of frustrating the liberty earlier granted by this Court. Prima facie, the observation that the petitioner is habitual in filing delayed proceedings does not appear to be supported by cogent reasons and has been recorded without proper appreciation of the factual background. 10. 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:- “(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 10 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 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 11 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. So far as the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding improper or inadequate prayer is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that though pleadings and prayers are important, it is equally well settled that in appropriate cases, particularly where manifest injustice is apparent, this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is empowered to mould the relief to advance the cause of substantial justice. The petitioner has, in fact, prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 06.09.2022 and for grant of appropriate relief as this Court may deem fit. Therefore, merely on a technical objection regarding the form of prayer, the petitioner cannot be non- suited, especially when the impugned order itself suffers from infirmity and has resulted in denial of consideration on merits. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the long period for which the petitioner has remained out of service, the recommendations made by the statutory Commission and the Sub- 12 Divisional Officer, and keeping in view the interest of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 06.09.2022 passed by respondent No.1 cannot be sustained in law. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law and to reconsider the case of the petitioner on its own merits, without being influenced by the earlier dismissal on the ground of delay, and to pass appropriate orders, if so advised, within a reasonable period. 15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues are left open to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE