1 CGHC010381802022 2026:CGHC:28028 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8242 of 2022  Kumari Taslim Bano D/o Shri Asgar Ali Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post Arjunda, Nagar Panchayat Arjunda, Tehsil Gunderdehi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dondi Lohara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 4. District Education Officer District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5. Block Education Officer Office Dondi Lohara, Block Dondi Lohara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Zainab Vanak, Advocate For State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Katyayani Vishnupriya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.07 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 24.08.2021 passed by Chief Executive Officer Janpad Pachayat Dondi Lohara District Balod, SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.09 14:11:59 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh. 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and direct the respondents to considered the letter dated 08.09.2021 filed by the petitioner. 10.3) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and may pass appropriate order that the Annexure P-8 is not a punishment and it would not keep adverse effect in respect of any future government job for the petitioner. 10.4) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem- fit and appropriate.” 2. Mr. Siddiqui would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher Panchayat (Shiksha Karmi Grade – III) at Government Primary School, Shikaritola, District Balod vide order dated 09.06.2005. Her services were regularized vide order dated 13.08.2009. It is contended that the petitioner remained absent from service for period from June, 2010 to August, 2010 and 09.02.2015 onwards, around 233 days. It is argued that respondent No. 3 without affording any opportunity of hearing and without holding a departmental enquiry removed the petitioner from services vide order dated 24.08.2021 applying provisions of Rule 10 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred as “Rules, 1999”). He would contend that as the petitioner was regular employee of the department, therefore, the authority concerned should have conducted inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. He would submit that the order is bad in law and may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Vishnupriya, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 3 would submit that the petitioner remained absent from services for 3 considerable period and numerous notices were issued on 29.11.2014, 04.06.2016 and 13.04.2018, and when petitioner failed to resume her duties, the order impugned was passed according to the provisions of Rule 9 of Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 (for short “Rules, 1997”). She would refer Rule 9 of Rules, 1997, which states that services of temporary Shiksha Karmis can be terminated after issuance of one month notice or prior payment of one month salary. She would submit that according to said provision decision was taken by the respondent No. 3. She would contend that sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and procedure contemplated in the Rules of 1997 were also followed, and therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer would contend that there is dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade – III vide order dated 09.06.2005. Her services were regularized vide order dated 13.08.2009. The petitioner remained unauthorized absent for period of 233 days in different intervals. It is also apparent that numerous show-cause notices were issued by the department and when petitioner failed to join services, order impugned dated 24.08.2021 was passed and she was removed from services. 7. The Rule – 9 of Rules, 1997 deals with services of temporary Shiksha Karmi, whereas, services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 13.08.2009, and therefore, in opinion of this Court said provision would not 4 attract in the case on hand. 8. In the order impugned, it is categorically stated that penalty defined in Rule – 10 of the Rules of 1999 has been inflicted. Therefore, he authority concerned should have followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, which reads as under :- 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. (5) The disciplinary authority may nominate any person 5 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; (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 6 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 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. According to the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, the disciplinary authority has to frame definite charges on the basis of allegations and he has to communicate such charges along with the statement of the allegations to the member of the Panchayat Service. Such a member of the Panchayat Service would be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such records. After receipt of the written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority may himself enquire into the charges. The disciplinary authority may nominate any person to present the case before the Enquiry Officer. The 7 member of the Panchayat service may present his case with the assistance of any other Panchayat Servant. After the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has to prepare a report of the inquiry, recording his findings on each of the charges together with reasons. The Enquiry Officer has to submit its report before the disciplinary authority, thereafter, the disciplinary authority on the basis of documents and findings recorded in the inquiry report may take an appropriate decision. The disciplinary authority has to consider the representation, if any, made by such a member of the Panchayat service. The order passed by the disciplinary authority would be communicated to the member of the Panchayat service. 10. In the present case, no article of charge was issued, the respondent No. 3 failed to examine witness of the petitioner, and thus, order was passed in utter violation of the procedure contemplated in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, therefore, the order dated 24.08.2021 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and same is hereby quashed. Accordingly, instant petition is hereby allowed. 11. In the entire petition, the petitioner has nowhere pleaded that she was not gainfully employed anywhere, and therefore, the issue of back-wages is not being considered. The petitioner would be at liberty to move an application before the authority concerned claiming therein arrears of wages and other benefits attached to the post. 12. It is informed by Mr. Siddiqui that resignation was tendered by the petitioner on 04.11.2020, but no decision was taken. After reinstatement of services of the petitioner, she would be at liberty to move a fresh resignation before the authority concerned and the said authority is directed to consider her application, strictly in accordance with the law. 8 13. The respondent No. 3 would be at liberty to initiate enquiry, if so advised, strictly in accordance with the law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant