1 2026:CGHC:7632 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2324 of 2023 1 - Amarnath Sai S/o. Tani Sai, Aged About 42 Years R/o. Village Chogaribahar P.S. And Tahsil Bagicha District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan Atalnagar New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 4 - District Educatin Officer, Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer, Pharsabhar District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. D. R. Minj, Dy. Advocate General For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/02/2026 1. The present petition is filed against the impugned order dated 27.12.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.3 terminating the petitioner from the post of Teacher Panchayat on the allegation of unauthorized absence w.e.f. 18.03.2016. It is submitted that the petitioner had replied to the show cause notice explaining his absence on account of illness and medical treatment; however, the impugned order was passed without conducting any departmental enquiry, without affording opportunity of hearing, and without obtaining approval of the General Administrative Committee of the concerned Zila Panchayat, in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The present writ petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the impugned order dated 17.12.2016 ANNEXURE P/1 passed by the respondent no.3. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within stipulated period. 10.3 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 3. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Sikshakarmi Grade–II by respondent No. 3 vide appointment order dated 26.12.2006. Pursuant to the said appointment order, the petitioner duly joined his services on 14.07.2007 at Government High School, Jagdampur–3, Block Pharsabahar, District concerned, and since the date of joining he had been continuously discharging his duties with utmost sincerity, dedication and honesty, without any prior complaint or adverse remark regarding his conduct or performance. It is the case of the petitioner that on 12.07.2016, an inspection of the said school was carried out by the Cluster Academic Coordinator (C.A.C.). During the course of inspection, it was allegedly found and recorded that the petitioner had remained absent from duty from 18.03.2016 to 12.07.2016 without prior information or sanctioned leave. On the basis of the said inspection report, respondent No. 4 issued a show cause notice dated 01.08.2016 , calling upon the petitioner to explain the alleged unauthorized absence and to submit his reply within the stipulated period. Upon receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply, explaining that during the relevant period he was suffering from serious physical ailments, due to which he had to go to his native village for medical treatment. The petitioner stated that he was under continuous medical care and treatment and, on account of his deteriorated health condition, he was unable to attend the school or discharge his official duties. 4 The petitioner further contended that his absence was neither intentional nor deliberate but was solely attributable to compelling medical circumstances beyond his control. However, despite submission of the said reply and without holding any regular departmental enquiry as contemplated under the applicable service rules, and without framing formal charges, recording evidence, or affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing, respondent No. 3 proceeded to pass the impugned order against the petitioner. It is further averred that the impugned order was passed in a mechanical manner, without due consideration of the explanation furnished by the petitioner and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the petitioner contends that the said order was issued without obtaining the mandatory approval of the General Administrative Committee of the concerned Zila Panchayat, which was a prerequisite under the governing rules. Aggrieved by the arbitrary, procedurally irregular and legally unsustainable action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking appropriate relief. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. The petitioner has been subjected to a major civil consequence without conducting a regular departmental enquiry as mandated under the applicable service rules. No charge-sheet was issued, no enquiry officer was appointed, and no opportunity 5 was granted to the petitioner to defend himself, resulting in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that mere issuance of a show cause notice cannot substitute a full-fledged enquiry, particularly when the alleged misconduct relates to unauthorized absence and entails a major penalty. Learned counsel argues that the impugned order has also been passed without obtaining the mandatory approval of the General Administrative Committee of the concerned Zila Panchayat, thereby rendering the action without jurisdiction. Additionally, the reply submitted by the petitioner explaining the medical circumstances of his absence has not been considered, which demonstrates non-application of mind. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed. 5. Learned State counsel, supported by learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the impugned termination order is dated 27.12.2016, whereas the present petition has been filed after about seven years without any satisfactory explanation. It is submitted that the petitioner, appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade– II, remained unauthorizedly absent from duty from 18.03.2016 to 12.07.2016, as revealed during inspection. A show cause notice dated 01.08.2016 was issued, but the petitioner failed to furnish any credible explanation. The reply subsequently submitted was unsupported by any medical documents and therefore could not justify the prolonged absence. Considering the gravity of misconduct, the matter was placed before the General 6 Administration Committee of the Zila Panchayat, which granted approval for action. Thereafter, the petitioner was terminated by order dated 27.12.2016 after due process. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents enclosed along with the petition with utmost circumspection. 7. At the outset, this Court deems it appropriate to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the learned State counsel as also learned counsel for respondent No. 3 with regard to delay and laches. The impugned order has been passed in December, 2016 and the petitioner has approached this Court after a considerable lapse of time. It is equally well settled that when the impugned action is ex facie without jurisdiction or is passed in flagrant violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice, the doctrine of delay and laches cannot be applied in a rigid or mechanical manner. If the order itself is void ab initio for non- compliance of mandatory statutory procedure, the same cannot be allowed to stand merely on the ground of delay. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court proceeds to examine the matter on merits. 8. Rule 5(b)(vi) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 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 7 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 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 8 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. (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, 9 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; (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 10 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 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. From the impugned order it is evident that the petitioner has been removed/terminated from service. Rule 5(b)(vi) of the Rules, 1999 clearly classifies “Removal from service not disqualifying for future employment” as a major penalty. Once the penalty falls within the category of major penalty, Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 mandates 11 that no such penalty shall be imposed except after holding a formal enquiry in the manner prescribed therein. Rule 7 lays down an elaborate procedure which includes framing of definite charges, communication of statement of allegations, grant of opportunity to submit written statement of defence, right to inspect records, conduct of oral enquiry where evidence is led, opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, preparation of enquiry report recording findings on each charge with reasons, supply of the enquiry report to the delinquent employee, consideration of representation and thereafter passing of a reasoned order. The language employed in Rule 7 is mandatory in nature. The use of the expression “no order… shall be passed except after a formal inquiry is held” leaves no room for doubt that compliance of the prescribed procedure is a condition precedent for imposition of a major penalty. 10. In the present case, it is not in dispute that only a show cause notice dated 01.08.2016 was issued to the petitioner on the basis of the inspection report. It is also not disputed that no formal charge-sheet containing definite articles of charge was framed. No enquiry officer was appointed. No oral enquiry was conducted. No opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine any witness or to produce documentary evidence in support of his defence. No enquiry report as contemplated under Rule 7(7) was prepared and supplied to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. A mere issuance of show cause notice cannot 12 be equated with a formal departmental enquiry as contemplated under Rule 7. The statutory safeguards provided under the Rules are not empty formalities; they are substantive protections to ensure fairness in disciplinary proceedings, particularly when the proposed action entails civil consequences of serious magnitude, such as removal from service. 11. 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. 12. 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:- “(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 13 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 14 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.” 13. 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. 14. Apart from non-compliance of the statutory mandate, the impugned action also suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had submitted a reply explaining the circumstances of his absence on medical grounds. Whether such explanation was acceptable or not could have been determined only after conducting a proper enquiry. The impugned order does not reflect any detailed consideration of the petitioner’s explanation nor does it disclose reasons demonstrating application of mind. It is trite law that when an order results in deprivation of livelihood, strict adherence to procedural fairness is 15 imperative. The respondents, instead of resorting to the prescribed procedure for imposing a major penalty, have short- circuited the process by directly passing the order of termination. Such action cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 15. Though it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the General Administration Committee granted approval in its meeting held on 18.11.2016, such approval, even if assumed to be valid, cannot cure the fundamental defect of non-holding of a formal enquiry as mandated under Rule 7. Compliance with statutory procedure is not a mere technicality but a jurisdictional requirement. In absence of a lawful enquiry, the disciplinary authority lacked competence to impose the penalty of removal. 16. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 27.12.2016 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner has been removed from service, has been passed in clear contravention of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The same is, therefore, unsustainable in law. 17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.12.2016 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. However, it is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. It shall be open to the competent authority to proceed afresh against the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with law 16 and strictly in compliance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1999. 18. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs Sd/-d/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha