Vinod Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of order dated 07/12.04.2016 (Annexure P-1) by which the petitioner’s

services have been terminated on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) in accordance with provisions contained in Chhattisgarh Panchayat

Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1999’).

The petitioner while working as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) in Primary School, Magarlota was placed under suspension and preliminary enquiry

was made by the District Education Officer and submitted his report to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon on 06.11.2015

and on that basis, General Administration Committee of Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon passed the resolution dated 6.4.2016 and the petitioner's

services have been terminated, which has called in question by way of this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner could not have been

terminated without following the procedure as prescribed in Rule 7(1) of the Rules of 1999.

Return has been filed by the respondents opposing the writ petition stating inter-alia that the petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct in misbehaving

with minor girls and in view of that, resolution dated 6.4.2016 was passed by General Administration Committee of Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon

and accordingly, the services of the petitioner have been terminated by the impugned order dated 07/12.04.2016 (Annexure P-1), which is in

accordance with law.

Mr.Arvind Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that without following the procedure as contemplated in Rule 7(1) of the Rules

of 1999, major penalty could not have been inflicted, which is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. He would rely upon decision of this

Court passed in Writ Petition (S) No.1942 of 2013 (Smt.Gayatri Dewangan v. The State of Chhattisgarh and others), decided on 22.1.2021.

On the other hand, Mr.Harshal Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.3, would support the impugned order and submit that looking to the

serious misconduct committed by the petitioner, his services have been terminated in compliance of the resolution dated 6.4.2016 passed by General

Administration Committee of Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, which is strictly in accordance with law and as such, the writ petition deserves to be

dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost

circumspection.

Admittedly, the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) and his services are governed by the Rules of 1999. Part-III

of the Rules of 1999 provides for Discipline. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1999 provides for Penalties and clause (b) of Rule 5 provides for Major Penalties.

Sub-clause (vii) of clause (b) of Rule 5 states as under: -

“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:â€

(a) Minor penaltiesâ€

(i) to (iii) xxx xxx xxx

(b) Major Penaltiesâ€

(iv) to (vi)  xxx  xxx  xxx

(vii) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment:â€​

As per the aforesaid provision, dismissal from service of the petitioner is major penalty. Procedure for imposing major penalties has been prescribed

in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 states 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

clause (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.â€​

It is admitted position on record that though the petitioner has been subjected to imposition of major penalty i.e. dismissal from service under Rule

5(b)(vii) of the Rules of 1999, but admittedly no formal enquiry has been conducted against him in the manner prescribed under Rule 7(1) of the Rules

of 1999. Consequently, the order of termination is without jurisdiction and without authority of law and is liable to be set aside.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 07/12.04.2016 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. However, the disciplinary authority is at

liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Since the petitioner is already in service, no consequential order is required to be passed.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).