Termination of regular Panchayat employees without formal disciplinary inquiry as per statutory rules is void ab initio.

The petitioner was appointed as Shikshakarmi Grade-III in 2010 and regularized as an Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) in 2013

From June 2014 to 2019, she remained absent from duty, citing prolonged illness supported by medical certificates

Between 2017 and 2020, the respondent authorities issued several show-cause notices regarding her unauthorized absence

On 08.04.2021, the Janpad Panchayat passed a resolution for her termination, which was executed via an order dated 24.12.2021

The petitioner’s statutory appeals to the Collector and the Commissioner were dismissed

The petitioner challenged these orders on the grounds that her services were terminated under the wrong set of rules (2012 Rules instead of 2007 Rules) and without a mandatory departmental inquiry

1. Whether the termination of the petitioner’s services satisfies the mandatory procedural requirements of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999

2. Whether the termination order was legally sustainable given it was passed under the Chhattisgarh Shikshak (Panchayat) Samvarg Rules, 2012, while the petitioner was governed by the 2007 Rules

The Court primarily applied Rules 5 and 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which mandate that "removal from service" is a major penalty that cannot be imposed without a "formal inquiry" involving framed charges, evidence, and the right to cross-examine

It relied on the Division Bench precedent in Rooplal Nayak v. State of Chhattisgarh, which established that regular departmental inquiries are indispensable for major penalties under the 1999 Rules

Furthermore, it applied the principle from Sandeep Kumar v. GB Pant Institute and Chhel Singh v. MGB Gramin Bank, holding that termination for unauthorized absence without an inquiry to determine if such absence was "wilful" violates the principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India

The Court observed that as a regularized employee, the petitioner held substantive status and could not be terminated via a mere resolution of the General Body Meeting

The court found that the respondents committed a jurisdictional error by invoking the 2012 Rules, which were inapplicable to the petitioner

Crucially, the court noted that no charge-sheet was issued, no inquiry officer was appointed, and no "formal inquiry" as defined under Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules was conducted

The respondents’ reliance on administrative circulars (dated 2018 and 2020) was rejected because executive instructions cannot override statutory rules requiring disciplinary proceedings

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s medical certificates were never properly verified through a fair process, and the authorities failed to determine through evidence whether the absence constituted "wilful abandonment" or was compelled by illness, thereby ignoring the doctrine of proportionality

The High Court quashed the termination order dated 24.12.2021 and the subsequent appellate orders dated 25.03.2022 and 28.02.2023

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith

However, the court granted the respondents liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings strictly in accordance with the 1999 Rules, clarifying that the reinstatement is subject to the outcome of such fresh proceedings