ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 24.09.2016 (Annexure P/15) issued by Respondent No. 4, whereby the petitioner has been terminated from service on the ground of her unauthorised absent from duty for seven years. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, as under: (i) The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I in the Govt. Higher Secondary School Belargondi, Block Office - Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon and rendered her services in Geography subject taking charge on 31.07.2009 pursuant to the appointment order No. 3099/shi.ka.bhu.-1/stha/2009-2010 dated 27.07.2009. The petitioner continued her services at the given place of posting. (ii) Thereafter, the petitioner was on leave from 29.08.2013 to 28.04.2014 on account of her physical ailment (backage and slipped-disk) and after availing medical leave she joined her services on 29.04.2014 (Annexure P/1). (iii) Thereafter, from 07.10.2014 to 07.04.2015, the petitioner was on maternity leave and joined her duties on 07.04.2015 (Annexure P/2). After availing maternity leave, the petitioner applied for earned leave to take care of her newly born child and accordingly proceeded on leave from 08.04.2015 to 29.04.2015 and gave her joining on 30.04.2015 (Annexure P/4). (iv) Thereafter, the petitioner applied for leave from 16.06.2015 to 15.07.2015 on medical ground and she had to join on 16.07.2015, however, vide letter dated 15.07.2015 (Annexure P/5), the petitioner prayed for further leave till her joining on the ground of her physical ailment. (v) The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 25.08.2015 (Annexure P/6) by respondent No. 4 and sought for her explanation for petitioner’s unauthorized absence. The petitioner duly replied to the show cause notice vide Annexure P/7 explaining the cause of her leave. (vi) On 16.10.2016, the respondent No. 4 issued a letter (Annexure P/9) for submitting medical certificate of District Medical Board. Accordingly, the petitioner duly replied to the letter dated 16.10.2016 and submitted required medical certificate (Annexure P/11). (vii) On 30.03.2016, the petitioner sent a registered letter (Annexure P/12) with medical certificate of doctor to respondent No. 4 for extending leave which was expiring on 31.03.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a request letter enclosing medical certificate (Annexure P/13) to respondent No. 2 for grant of leave from 16.06.2016 to 15.07.2016 on medical ground endorsing the copy of the same to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a request letter enclosing medical certificate (Annexure P/13) to respondent No. 2 for grant of leave from 16.06.2016 to 15.07.2016 on medical ground endorsing the copy of the same to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. (viii) The respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 24.08.2016 (Annexure P/14) informed the petitioner that her leave case has been sent for sanction to respondent No. 4, however, no action/proceeding was taken on the said letter and vide order dated 24.09.2016 (Annexure P/15), the respondent No. 4 terminated the services of the petitioner. (ix) The petitioner vide letter dated 09.10.2016 (Annexure P/16) replied to the termination order issued by respondent No. 4 explaining the cause of her leave on medical ground. (x) Thereafter, the petitioner against the termination order dated 24.06.2016, preferred an appeal (Annexure P/17) before the Commissioner, Durg, which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 07.12.2017 (Annexure P/20) on the ground of delay. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs: “10.1. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by setting-aside order dated 24.09.2016 (Annexure P/15) issued by respondent No. 4 be held to be illegal and without authority since no enquiry of unauthorized leave has been made as per Apex Court decision, therefore, declining the appellate authority respondent No. 5 to hear the appeal on merits holding it to be time barred vide order dated 07.12.2017 be set-aside and the petitioner be directed to be reinstated in service with back wages and if necessary the respondent No. 2 to 4 may decide regarding leave matter, whether it is unauthorized absence or not? By giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10.2 Costs of the petition be awarded and 10.3 Any other relief or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner from time-to-time has sent leave applications and after recovery of her illness, she gave joining on respective dates, therefore, the absence of the petitioner from duty cannot be treated as unauthorized absence. The respondent Nos. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner from time-to-time has sent leave applications and after recovery of her illness, she gave joining on respective dates, therefore, the absence of the petitioner from duty cannot be treated as unauthorized absence. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4, despite her leave application from time to time, have not decided the leave case of the petitioner nor any inquiry has been made against the petitioner thereof, therefore, termination order dated 24.09.2016 (Annexure P/15) is premature and bad in law & liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were under obligation to first decide the leave case holding that there was unauthorized absence by affording proper opportunity to the petitioner to explain the position that she was not in unauthorized leave, therefore, it is not a case of unauthorized absence as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in case between State of Punjab vs. Dr. P.L. Singla, 2008 (8) SCC 469 . 4. Learned counsel also submits that the termination order (Annexure P/15) issued by Respondent No. 4 is premature, illegal and against the principles of natural justice, as such, the order of termination and order dated 17.02.2017 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of delay by the Respondent No. 5 be held to be illegal and set-aside by directing reinstatement of petitioner with back wages. To buttress his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Madhuri Mahobiya vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2022 Law Suit (Chh) 997. 5. Learned counsel for State/respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the President, School Management and Development Committee, High School Belargondi, made a complaint on 02.03.2016 and requested to transfer the petitioner because of her long unauthorized absent and for not taking interest in teaching. On the basis of report dated 26.08.2015, the Principal, Govt. High School, Belargondi, regarding not joining the school of the petitioner after maternity leave, a show cause notice dated 25.08.2015 (Annexure R-1/2) was issued to the petitioner directing her to join the duty. On the basis of report dated 26.08.2015, the Principal, Govt. High School, Belargondi, regarding not joining the school of the petitioner after maternity leave, a show cause notice dated 25.08.2015 (Annexure R-1/2) was issued to the petitioner directing her to join the duty. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice issued to her and on being fount it to be not satisfactory, vide letter dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure R-1/3), she was directed to submit medical certificate from the District Medical Board. Learned counsel also submits that vide order dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure R-1/4), punishment of withholding one increment was imposed upon the petitioner and on the basis of report submitted by the Principal, Govt. High School, Belargondi, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon issued last warning on 21.03.2016 (Annexure R-1/5). Learned counsel also submits that on 23.05.2016, the Block Education officer, Chhuriya submitted a report (Annexure R-1/6) that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from duty from 01.04.2011 to 23.05.2016. Thereafter, the General Administration Committee, Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, in its meeting dated 30.05.2016 passed a resolution (Annexure R-1/7) to discontinue the services of the petitioner. Subsequently, vide order dated 24.09.2016 (Annexure P/15), the services of the petitioner has been discontinued. Learned counsel also submits that on 15.02.2017, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Durg, which was rejected by the Commissioner on 07.12.2017 on the ground of it being time barred. As such, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned and the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 adopting the submission made by learned State counsel submits that the order passed by the respondent authorities are based on proper report filed by the competent authority and before passing the order notices were issued to the petitioner. Thus, the order impugned cannot be termed to be illegal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I in Govt. Higher Secondary School. She was appointed on 27.07.2009 and took charge on 31.07.2009 & she was terminated by the respondent authorities vide order dated 24.09.2016 (Annexure P/15) on the ground of her unauthorized absent. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I in Govt. Higher Secondary School. She was appointed on 27.07.2009 and took charge on 31.07.2009 & she was terminated by the respondent authorities vide order dated 24.09.2016 (Annexure P/15) on the ground of her unauthorized absent. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the termination order, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 07.12.2017 on the ground of it being barred by limitation. It is not in dispute that services of the petitioner is governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 9. This Court in the matter of Madhuri (supra) dealt with several provisions of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short “the Adhiniyam 1993”) and Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) (Cadre Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rule, 2012 (for short “the Rule 2012) and observed in Para 11 and 15 as under: “11. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II vide order dated 07.02.2011 and thereafter, vide order dated 03.06.2013, her probation period has been completed. On 11.07.2013, she moved an application before Block Education Officer Bodla for medical leave and thereafter she remained absent from the duties. The respondent No. 3 without conducting any enquiry has dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 08.02.2016 (Annexure P/1) exercising the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules, 2012. 15. Considering the submission and the fact that the petitioner is a confirmed employee and before termination from service, which is major penalty, procedure for imposing major as provided in Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 has not been followed, therefore, order dated 08.02.2016 (Annexure P/5) is opposed to the principle of natural justice and in violation of the Rules, 1999, the same deserves to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated without back-wages but continuity of service. Since this Court has quashed the termination order on the technical grounds of non-compliance of procedure provided under the Rules, 1999, the respondent No. 3 is at liberty to proceed further against the petitioner in accordance with Rules, 1999, if administrative exigency so arise.” 10. In the instant case also the petitioner discharged her duties from 27.07.2009 to 29.08.2013 and thereafter she proceeded on maternity leave and further on her physical ailment precisely on medical leave. In the instant case also the petitioner discharged her duties from 27.07.2009 to 29.08.2013 and thereafter she proceeded on maternity leave and further on her physical ailment precisely on medical leave. It is also admitted by the respondent authorities that vide order dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure R-1/4), punishment of withholding of one increment was imposed upon the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that before passing the impugned order of termination (Annexure P/15), no inquiry was conducted/initiated against the petitioner precisely for unauthorized absent. Termination from service is a major penalty as provide in Rule 7 of the Rule, 2012, and the service condition of the Panchayat employee is governed by Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short “the Rules 1999”). 11. Thus, in view of the order passed by this Court in the matter of Madhuri (supra), procedure for imposing major penalty as provided in Rule 7 of Rules 1999, it is clear that before terminating an employee from service, which is major penalty, proper procedure for imposing major penalty as provided in Rule 7 of Rule 1999 has not been followed in the case. As such, the impugned order dated 24.09.2016 (Annexure P/15) and order dated 07.12.2017 (Annexure P/20) passed by the Appellate Authority are set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service without back wages but continuity of service. Since this Court has quashed the termination order on the technical grounds of non-compliance of procedure provided under the Rules, 1999, the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed further against the petitioner in accordance with Rules, 1999, if administrative exigency so arise. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed in part.