JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing by consent of the parties. 3. The subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition is an order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Gondia directing the petitioner who works as Assistant Live Stock Development Officer in Panchayat Samiti, Deori, District : Gondia, to stop working as Secretary of the fourth respondent, an educational society/trust duly registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The purported basis of the impugned order is that the petitioner, without previous sanction of the Chief Executive Officer, engaged directly or indirectly in a trade or business or undertook an employment with the respondent institution. 4. Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Conduct) Rule 1967 prohibits any Parishad servant to engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business or undertake any employment except with the previous sanction of the Chief Executive Officer or take part in registration, promotion or management of any Bank or Company registered under any law for the time being in force. In the respective provisos to sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 14 an exception is made in the case of Parishad servant who may, without such sanction, undertake honorary work of a social or charitable nature or occasional work of literary, artistic or scientific character [proviso to sub-rule (1)] or take part in the registration, promotion or management of any charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or any other corresponding law for the time being in force [proviso to sub-rule (2)]. The proviso to sub-rule (1) is subject to the condition that the official duties of the servant do not thereby suffer and that he discontinues such work if so directed by the Chief Executive Officer. 5. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner works as secretary of respondent No. 4 on a remuneration. There is indeed no such finding in the impugned order. The impugned order is passed exclusively on the footing that the engagement as secretary was taken up without previous sanction of the Chief Executive Officer. Respondent No. 4 is admittedly a charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act. There is indeed no such finding in the impugned order. The impugned order is passed exclusively on the footing that the engagement as secretary was taken up without previous sanction of the Chief Executive Officer. Respondent No. 4 is admittedly a charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act. If the petitioner as Parishad servant takes part in its management, the services rendered by the petitioner come within the exception of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14. Even otherwise, there is no restriction for undertaking any honorary work of social or charitable nature so long as official duties rendered by the Parishad servant do not thereby suffer. These aspects are completely overlooked by the Chief Executive Officer in the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad as also the complainant, at whose instance the impugned order was passed, submit, firstly, that the proviso also requires Parishad servants to discontinue any honorary work of social or charitable nature if so directed by the Chief Executive Officer. It is submitted that the present order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, in fact, is a direction to so discontinue the work. There is no merit in this contention. In the first place, it is quite obvious that the Chief Executive Officer is empowered to direct the Parishad servant to discontinue his honorary work of social or charitable nature. But such direction can never be issued simply on the basis that such honorary work of social or charitable nature was undertaken without previous sanction of the Chief Executive Officer, for if the Chief Executive Officer were allowed to do so, it would make scarce sense of the proviso which excepts honorary work undertaken by a Parishad servant of a social and charitable nature sans any sanction of the Chief Executive Officer. Ordinarily, such power of the Chief Executive Officer is expected to be exercised in a case where such honorary work interferes with, and impedes, official duties of the Parishad servant. Ordinarily, such power of the Chief Executive Officer is expected to be exercised in a case where such honorary work interferes with, and impedes, official duties of the Parishad servant. Anyway, even under the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14, work of management of a charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act or any other corresponding law for the time being in force, which would include the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, is also clearly excepted and this exception is not subject to condition of discontinuation of work, if so directed by the Chief Executive Officer as in the case of the proviso to sub-rule (1). 7. In either view of the matter, the impugned order of the Chief Executive Officer cannot be sustained. For the same reasons, the appellate order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur rejecting the petitioner’s appeal also suffers from legal infirmities. The impugned order of the Additional Commissioner, whilst noticing the appellant’s contention that he did not accept any remuneration for managing the affairs of the charitable society, proceeds to observe that if, whilst working in government service, the petitioner were to engage in management of a private institution which runs three schools, such engagement may result into suffering of his official duties. This is clearly speculative. That was not the basis on which either the impugned order was passed, in the first place, or which was brought out before either the Chief Executive Officer or the Additional Commissioner. 8. In the premises, the impugned orders of the Chief Executive Officer and the Additional Commissioner cannot be sustained. 9. Rule is, accordingly, made absolute by quashing and setting aside both the orders. It is however, clarified that the present order does not come in the way of the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad considering in future whether the official duties to be rendered by the petitioner as Assistant Live Stock Development Officer of the Panchayat Samiti actually suffer as a result of the charitable work carried out by the petitioner. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits in this behalf are kept open. Petition allowed.