Termination of a Panchayat Service employee without conducting a formal departmental inquiry as mandated by Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, is legally unsustainable and must be quashed.

Order on Board

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

10.I. Quash/set aside an order dated 21/5/18 (Annexure P/ 10) issued by the respondent no. 4.

II. direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner alongwith all back wages and all other consequential and other benefit to the petitioner.

III. direct the respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to petitioner case.

IV. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Gajmarra, Janpad Panchayat Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, vide order dated 10.08.2000. He would further submit that petitioner was apprehended in connection with offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 148, and 201 of the IPC and was convicted by the competent criminal Court vide order dated 31.07.2006. He would contend that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the High Court, which was allowed vide judgment dated 04.05.2017, and the petitioner was acquitted of all charges. He would further contend that after acquittal, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities seeking reinstatement, but his request was declined. He would argue that without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, an order dated 21.05.2018 was passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, terminating his services on the ground of absence from duty for long 10 years. He would further argue that no departmental enquiry, as required under Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short, the Rules, 1999), was conducted. Since the petitioner was working as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Gajmarra, he was a employee of Panchayat, and therefore, the respondent authorities were under obligation to conduct a proper departmental enquiry; thus, it is prayed that the order dated 21.05.2018 may be quashed.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose and submit that the notice was issued to the petitioner; however, since he was in jail, it could not be served, thereafter, order impugned dated 21.05.2018 was passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Rajnandgaon, terminating his services. He would further submit that the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34, 148, & 201 of the IPC. Subsequently, in appeal, the petitioner was acquitted by the High Court. He would argue that the petitioner remained 10 years unauthorizedly absent from his duties; thus, the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

4. It is argued by Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 that the petitioner remained absent for more than five years, and according to Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010, such absence was treated as resignation & therefore, no enquiry was conducted.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

6. Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, reads as under:-

“Rule - 7. Procedure for imposing major penalties.

(1) No order, imposing on a member of the Panchayat Service, any of the penalties specified in claus