IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the prescribed procedure for imposing minor penalties under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, and the jurisdiction of the authority to impose such penalties.

ORDER :

Heard.

1. By way of the present petition the petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 28/08/2012 passed under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1999’) whereby the minor punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner.

2. It is stated that initially for certain misconduct alleged the petitioner was suspended on 12/01/2009 vide Annexure P/2. Subsequently, the suspension was revoked by order dated 28/02/2009 (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, the communication was made from the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur on 08/10/2010 (Annexure P/4) wherein the Enquiry Officer was appointed for a proposed departmental enquiry under Rule 7 (5) of the Rules, 1999.

3. Rule 7 (5) of the Rules, 1999 contemplate about the procedure for imposing major penalties which purports that 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 approved by the Enquiry Officer but may not engage a legal practitioner.

4. Be that as it may, even when such enquiry was proposed, subsequently no enquiry started. The petitioner contended that he has not been served with any charge-sheet, which remained unreplied. Thereafter, the said proceeding to appoint Enquiry Officer was started in October, 2010. The charge-sheet having not been supplied and it was at dormant stage on 19/04/2012 (Annexure P/7) the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilasipur, asked the Principal of the School wherein the petitioner was working that since he was appointed as Presenting Officer but he has not submitted any report or provided any document and nothing has been heard from him after his appointment, therefore, within three days the enquiry be conducted and report be submitted. The Block Education Officer, Mungeli, also addressed a letter which shows that he was appointed as an Enquiry Officer but no documents were ever supplied to him.

5. Letter dated 08/10/2010 (Annexure P/4) would show that the Block Education Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the Principal was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The Principal i.e. the Presenting Officer, replied to the letter that since for two years no communication has been made and document of the charge-sheet and other documents were not available in the School and the same was also not served to the petitioner, therefore, the proposed Enquiry may be closed. The said communication was made by letter dated 10/07/2012 (Annexure P/9). Pursuant thereto the Zila Panchayat Officer (Annexure P/10) with a note appended to it directed that since no enquiry has started and the charge-sheet has not been served therefore, the petitioner may be imposed with a minor penalty as per Rules, 1999.

6. It is been submitted by the petitioner that no document related to any enquiry or any charges have ever been served to the petitioner either under Rule 7 or the subsequent punishment proposed under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1999 which encompasses the minor penalty and the order dated 28/08/2012 (Annexure P/1) was served wherein stoppage of two increments was ordered with non-cumulative effect. It is submitted that the said order is without jurisdiction and is completely illegal, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel for Respondents No.1 to 5 would submit that against the order the petitioner should have preferred the appeal as the alternative remedy is available to him under Rule 15 of the Rules, 1999 and the petition is grossly delayed.

8. The moot question arises is that the petitioner initially was suspended in the month of February, 2010 and again was reinstated with certain allegation. The Zila Panchayat proposed purported enquiry vide Ann