ORDER : This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 26.12.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 directing imposition of major penalty on the petitioner and the order dated 13.1.2017 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No.3 imposing major penalty on the petitioner by demoting him to the post of Assistant Grade-III on the lower pay scale. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wager on the post of Pump Operator under the office of respondent No.2 in the year 1983. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.10.1995 (Annexure P/4) the services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of Lower Division Clerk which was later on re-designated as Office Assistant Grade-III. Vide order dated 1.7.2006 (Annexure P/5) the petitioner was promoted from the post of OA-III to OA-II and he joined his duties on the same day. Though the petitioner was discharging his duties on the post of OA-II but he was not being given the benefits of the said post, hence he made several representations to the respondent authorities for redressal of his grievance but no action was taken thereon. Therefore, he filed a writ petition i.e. WPS No.1868/2014 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.9.2015 (Annexure P/7) with a direction to the Secretary, Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, Raipur to conduct an enquiry into the matter and if it is found that any DPC was held which led to issuance of order dated 21.7.2006, then the petitioner would be entitled to promotion from the said date and if it is found that no DPC was ever held, wherein the order dated 21.7.2006 was passed, the Secretary shall direct initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner. It was further directed that the Secretary shall also initiate disciplinary action against the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon who has submitted the affidavit. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, an enquiry was conducted by respondent No.2 wherein the petitioner examined himself and his witnesses, who clearly deposed that DPC was held and promotion order was duly passed on 1.7.2006. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, an enquiry was conducted by respondent No.2 wherein the petitioner examined himself and his witnesses, who clearly deposed that DPC was held and promotion order was duly passed on 1.7.2006. However, the Enquiry Officer examined the correctness of the promotion order as if he was an appellate authority of the Commissioner, in a biased and prejudicial manner and tried to establish that the promotion order has been passed contrary to the procedure which was not the subject matter of the enquiry as ordered by this Court, and recorded an erroneous finding in his enquiry report against the petitioner that the promotion order has been passed in an illegal manner and that the petitioner in order to obtain undue benefit of the said order has committed forgery. Based on the said enquiry report, respondent No.2 vide order dated 26.12.2016 directed the Commissioner to impose major penalty on the petitioner. Thereafter, the Commissioner without applying his mind passed the impugned order dated 13.1.2017 demoting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Grade-III to its lower pay scale. Hence this petition for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, the order dated 26.12.2016 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 13.01.2017 (Annexure P/2) be kindly quashed. 10.2 That, the findings of the Enquiry report dated 11.11.2016 (Annexure P/12) be kindly quashed. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to grant monetary and consequential benefits pursuant to joining of the petitioner on the promoted post of OA-II w.e.f. 1.07.2006. 10.4 That, the cost of the proceedings be kindly awarded. 10.5 Any other relief that the Hon’ble Court deem fit and appropriate may also kindly be granted in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned orders are illegal and liable to be quashed. The Enquiry Officer has acted in a biased manner without considering the defence raised by the petitioner and the evidence adduced by him and submitted its report. The witnesses examined by the petitioner have clearly stated that DPC was held and promotion order dated 1.7.2006 was issued after following the due process of law. None of the witnesses examined by the department said that the promotion order dated 1.7.2006 was forged one. The witnesses examined by the petitioner have clearly stated that DPC was held and promotion order dated 1.7.2006 was issued after following the due process of law. None of the witnesses examined by the department said that the promotion order dated 1.7.2006 was forged one. As per order of this Court dated 28.9.2015, an enquiry was to be conducted only to examine whether DPC was held or not but the Enquiry Officer acted without jurisdiction and has gone to the procedural aspect of promotion which was not the subject matter of enquiry. Though in the enquiry it has been clearly established that DPC was held and thereafter promotion order was passed, even then the Enquiry Officer held that the promotion order is forged one, for which the petitioner is responsible, which shows that the Enquiry Officer acted with malafides and in a prejudicial manner to protect the then Commissioner who submitted affidavit before this Court. This Court had directed that if it is found that no DPC was ever held wherein the order dated 1.7.2006 was issued, the Secretary shall direct initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner. However, respondents No. 3 & 4 in violation of the order of this court issued order dated 26.12.2016 and 13.1.2017 without conducting any departmental enquiry and imposed major penalty on the petitioner. As such, the order dated 13.1.2017 is contrary to Rule 49 of CG Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1968. In view of above illegality and infirmity committed by the respondent authorities, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the petitioner be granted the relief sought for. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer, 1985 AIR SC 1121, Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 ; DHBVNL Vidyut Nagar, Hisar Vs. Yashvir Singh Gulia, (2013) 11 SCC 173 and Allahabad Bank Vs. Krishna Narayan Tiwari, 2017 AIR SCW 330. 4. Presiding Officer, 1985 AIR SC 1121, Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 ; DHBVNL Vidyut Nagar, Hisar Vs. Yashvir Singh Gulia, (2013) 11 SCC 173 and Allahabad Bank Vs. Krishna Narayan Tiwari, 2017 AIR SCW 330. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents strongly oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition i.e. WPS No.1868/2014 challenging the gradation list of OA-III and for direction to decide the pending representation and grant monetary and consequential benefits pursuant to joining of the petitioner on the post of OA w.e.f. 21.7.2006 (Annexure R-3/1) but the respondents specifically denied in their reply that any such promotion has been granted to the petitioner. Later on, an affidavit of Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation was filed to the effect that no such DPC as mentioned in Annexure P/2 in the earlier writ petition, has been ever held by the Corporation promoting the person mentioned. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 28.9.2015 with a direction to the Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development to conduct an enquiry in the matter and if at the end of the enquiry it is found that any DPC was held which led to issuance of order dated 21.7.2006, the petitioner would be entitled to promotion from the said date and that the Secretary shall also initiate disciplinary action against the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon who has submitted the affidavit and further that if it is found that no DPC was ever held, direct initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner (Annexure R-3/2). In the enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and a specific finding was recorded that no such resolution or order has been passed promoting the petitioner. Thereafter, the State Government recommended for imposing major penalty and taking appropriate action against the others and communicating the same to the department. In the enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and a specific finding was recorded that no such resolution or order has been passed promoting the petitioner. Thereafter, the State Government recommended for imposing major penalty and taking appropriate action against the others and communicating the same to the department. It is submitted that since the enquiry was conducted by the highest authority in compliance of the order dated 28.9.2015 passed by this court in WPS No.1868/2014 after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and looking to the conduct of the petitioner, no interference is called for by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the finding of fact and quantum of sentence as the same has been passed strictly in accordance with law. 5. It is next argued that the petitioner is an employee of Municipal Corporation and his services are governed by CG Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 2007 and not under the Rules of 1968. On 28.4.2016 the State Government by its memo communicated to the Director, Urban Administration and Development for initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner and accordingly, departmental enquiry was conducted in which the statements were recorded and detailed procedure was followed. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty and the said report was forwarded to the State Government by Directorate, Urban Administration, on 23.11.2016. Thereafter, on 26.12.2016 the State Government directed the Corporation to impose major penalty on the petitioner. Thus, the order dated 13.1.2017 has been passed after following the due process of law and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was never promoted to the post of OA-II. As such, the instant petition being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 28.9.2015 passed by this Court in WPS No.1868/2014 in the matter of Chandrika Prasad Sinha Vs. State of CG and another. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. This Court in paras 6, 7 & 8 of its order dated 28.9.2015 passed in the previous writ petition No.1868/2014 held as under: “6. State of CG and another. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. This Court in paras 6, 7 & 8 of its order dated 28.9.2015 passed in the previous writ petition No.1868/2014 held as under: “6. It appears that on the one hand, the petitioner is straneously relying on Annexure P/2 to claim promotion on the post of OA-II and on the other hand, respondent – Corporation is stoutly denying holding of any such DPC which resulted in promotion order – Annexure P/2. (7) In the circumstances, this Court is left with no other option except to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Secretary, Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, Government of Chhattisgarh to conduct an enquiry into the matter. If at the end of enquiry, it is found that any DPC was held which led to issuance of the order dated 21.07.2006 (Annexure P/2), the petitioner would be entitled to promotion from the said date. The Secretary shall also initiate disciplinary action against the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, who has submitted the affidavit. (8) On the contrary, if it is found that no DPC was ever held, wherein the order dated 21.07.2006 (Annexure P/2) was issued, the Secretary shall direct initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner.” 8. It is clear from this order that this Court specifically observed that if it is found that no DPC was ever held, then the departmental proceedings be initiated against the petitioner. Annexure P/12 filed by the petitioner is the preliminary enquiry report issued by Joint Director, Regional Office, Urban Administration and Development, Durg Division and based on this report, the respondents imposed major penalty on the petitioner. Annexure P/1 is the letter dated 26.12.2016 issued by Under Secretary, State of CG, Urban Administration and Development Department, recommending for imposition of major penalty on the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order dated 13.1.2017 (Annexure P/2) was passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon imposing major penalty on the petitioner. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of DHBVNL Vidyut Nagar, Hisar (supra) observed in paras 13 to 16 of its decision as under: “13. The procedure for inflicting minor penalties is proved in Regulation 8, which reads as follows: “8. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of DHBVNL Vidyut Nagar, Hisar (supra) observed in paras 13 to 16 of its decision as under: “13. The procedure for inflicting minor penalties is proved in Regulation 8, which reads as follows: “8. Procedure for inflicting minor penalties.- (a) Without prejudice to the provisions of Regulations 7, an order for inflicting minor penalty shall not be passed on an employee unless he has been given a show-cause notice thereof and a reasonable opportunity of making representation there-against. If he requests for access to relevant record it may be allowed and opportunity of personal hearing be also given. Request for personal hearing may be rejected by the punishing authority by passing a speaking order. (b) Provided that this condition shall not apply in a case where an order based on facts, has led to his conviction in a Criminal Court or an order has been passed superseding him for promotion to a higher post on the grounds of his unfitness for that post on account of the existence of unsatisfactory record.” 14. The abovementioned provisions would indicate that an employee can be charge-sheeted for inflicting major penalties as well as minor penalties. In a given case even if a major penalty has been proposed on getting the reply from the delinquent, if the competent authority feels that no major penalty proceeding need be initiated, it can always switch over to initiate proceeding for inflicting minor penalties. Such a power is conferred on the Board vide Sub-regulation 8 of Regulation 7, which reads as follows: “7(8). Where an employee has been charge-sheeted under this regulation and the Competent Authority, on receipt of his reply to the charge sheet is of the opinion that no major punishment as laid down in Regulation-4 (vi to x) is called for, it may dispense with the holding of enquiry and inflict straight-away any of the minor penalties as laid down in Clause (i) to (v) of the ibid Regulation by a speaking order.” 15. The abovereferred Regulations, especially Regulation 7(8) clearly indicates that the competent authority has got the power to dispense with the procedure for holding a departmental inquiry, even though it had contemplated major penalty proceedings, on being satisfied with the reply submitted by the delinquent officer. In such a case, it can always follow the procedure for imposing minor penalty. The abovereferred Regulations, especially Regulation 7(8) clearly indicates that the competent authority has got the power to dispense with the procedure for holding a departmental inquiry, even though it had contemplated major penalty proceedings, on being satisfied with the reply submitted by the delinquent officer. In such a case, it can always follow the procedure for imposing minor penalty. Minor penalty, as per the Regulation, can be inflicted without holding any departmental inquiry, by giving only a show-cause-notice and a reasonable opportunity to make a representation to the show-cause-notice. Personal hearing can also be afforded and also can be dispensed with by a speaking order. 16. We are of the view that the procedure referred to hereinbefore has been followed by the Board. The delinquent officer was given an opportunity to submit his reply to the show-cause-notice which was considered and the Board took a conscious decision to impose only a minor penalty, i.e. barring one increment without cumulative effect, for which no full-fledged departmental inquiry is contemplated. Learned District Judge as well as the High Court, in our view, has committed a grave error in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Board which, in our view, is perfectly legal, going by the regulations referred to hereinbefore. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned District Judge as well as that of the High Court is set aside.” 10. In the present case, after preliminary enquiry being conducted against the petitioner, no show cause notice was issued to him and no departmental enquiry was conducted against him. The major penalty was imposed on him based on the preliminary enquiry report. As per Rule 52 of Municipal Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1968, there is a procedure prescribed for imposing minor and major penalties. Rules 52 reads as under: “52. Procedure for imposing minor and major penalties. The major penalty was imposed on him based on the preliminary enquiry report. As per Rule 52 of Municipal Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1968, there is a procedure prescribed for imposing minor and major penalties. Rules 52 reads as under: “52. Procedure for imposing minor and major penalties. - Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act and these rules, the procedure for imposing major and minor penalties shall be regulated according to the procedure laid down in the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the General Book Circulars applicable to the Government servant subject to the modification that if the report of the Enquiry Officer is received by the disciplinary authority or if the enquiry has been carried out by the disciplinary authority itself after he has completed the enquiry, the delinquent shall be heard on merits as well as punishment and a formal notice to show cause need not be served on him.” 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rules and law applicable to the present case, referred to above, it is crystal clear that after preliminary enquiry, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and no departmental enquiry was conducted against him. As such, the impugned order dated 13.1.2017 (Annexure P/2) cannot be said to have been passed in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.1.2017 is hereby set aside with all consequences benefits to the petitioner. However, the respondents are at liberty to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner in light of observations of this Court in the previous petition WPS No.1868/2014 where he shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing and if he is found guilt, suitable order be passed in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed to the above extent.