ORDER : Heard. 1. By way of the present petition the petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 28/08/2012 passed under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1999’) whereby the minor punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner. 2. It is stated that initially for certain misconduct alleged the petitioner was suspended on 12/01/2009 vide Annexure P/2. Subsequently, the suspension was revoked by order dated 28/02/2009 (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, the communication was made from the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur on 08/10/2010 (Annexure P/4) wherein the Enquiry Officer was appointed for a proposed departmental enquiry under Rule 7 (5) of the Rules, 1999. 3. Rule 7 (5) of the Rules, 1999 contemplate about the procedure for imposing major penalties which purports that the disciplinary authority may nominate any person to present the case in support of the charges before the Enquiry Officer. The member of the Panchayat Service may present his case with the assistance of any other Panchayat servant of State Government approved by the Enquiry Officer but may not engage a legal practitioner. 4. Be that as it may, even when such enquiry was proposed, subsequently no enquiry started. The petitioner contended that he has not been served with any charge-sheet, which remained unreplied. Thereafter, the said proceeding to appoint Enquiry Officer was started in October, 2010. The charge-sheet having not been supplied and it was at dormant stage on 19/04/2012 (Annexure P/7) the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilasipur, asked the Principal of the School wherein the petitioner was working that since he was appointed as Presenting Officer but he has not submitted any report or provided any document and nothing has been heard from him after his appointment, therefore, within three days the enquiry be conducted and report be submitted. The Block Education Officer, Mungeli, also addressed a letter which shows that he was appointed as an Enquiry Officer but no documents were ever supplied to him. 5. Letter dated 08/10/2010 (Annexure P/4) would show that the Block Education Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the Principal was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The Block Education Officer, Mungeli, also addressed a letter which shows that he was appointed as an Enquiry Officer but no documents were ever supplied to him. 5. Letter dated 08/10/2010 (Annexure P/4) would show that the Block Education Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the Principal was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The Principal i.e. the Presenting Officer, replied to the letter that since for two years no communication has been made and document of the charge-sheet and other documents were not available in the School and the same was also not served to the petitioner, therefore, the proposed Enquiry may be closed. The said communication was made by letter dated 10/07/2012 (Annexure P/9). Pursuant thereto the Zila Panchayat Officer (Annexure P/10) with a note appended to it directed that since no enquiry has started and the charge-sheet has not been served therefore, the petitioner may be imposed with a minor penalty as per Rules, 1999. 6. It is been submitted by the petitioner that no document related to any enquiry or any charges have ever been served to the petitioner either under Rule 7 or the subsequent punishment proposed under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1999 which encompasses the minor penalty and the order dated 28/08/2012 (Annexure P/1) was served wherein stoppage of two increments was ordered with non-cumulative effect. It is submitted that the said order is without jurisdiction and is completely illegal, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel for Respondents No.1 to 5 would submit that against the order the petitioner should have preferred the appeal as the alternative remedy is available to him under Rule 15 of the Rules, 1999 and the petition is grossly delayed. 8. The moot question arises is that the petitioner initially was suspended in the month of February, 2010 and again was reinstated with certain allegation. The Zila Panchayat proposed purported enquiry vide Annexure P/4 on 08/10/2010 and the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. It appears that after the appointment all the subsequent act which were required under Rules, 1999 were sidelined and it was after two years again the outcome of the enquiry was asked for. Under those circumstances, when it was found that no enquiry has been conducted and even the charge-sheet has not been given, eventually the minor punishment was proposed by order dated 10/07/2012 (Annexure P/10). 9. Under those circumstances, when it was found that no enquiry has been conducted and even the charge-sheet has not been given, eventually the minor punishment was proposed by order dated 10/07/2012 (Annexure P/10). 9. In order to impose the minor penalties certain statutory provisions were required to be followed and Rule 8 of the Rules, 1999 would be relevant which is reproduced:- 8. Procedure for imposing minor Penalties.-(1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iii)of rule 5 shall be passed except after :- (a) the person charged is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which such action is proposed to be taken and is given an opportunity to make any representation which he may wish to make; and (b) such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority: Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if my made by Panchayat Servant. under clause (b) of that sub rule to withhold increments of pay or stagnation allowance, and such with holding of increment of pay or stagnation allowance is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Panchayat Servant or to withhold increment of pay or stagnation allowance, for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay or stagnation allowance, with commutative effect for any period, an enquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub rule (1) to (11) of rule 7, before making any order imposing on the Panchayat Servant any such penalty. (2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include:- (i) a copy of intimation to the person charged of the proposal to take action against him; (ii) a copy of the statement of allegations communicated to him, his representation, and the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor. (3) A copy of the orders shall be supplied to the member of the Panchayat Service charged. 10. Perusal of it would show that minor penalties which is imposed under Rule 5 (a) (ii) has to be passed according to the procedure laid down under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1999. (3) A copy of the orders shall be supplied to the member of the Panchayat Service charged. 10. Perusal of it would show that minor penalties which is imposed under Rule 5 (a) (ii) has to be passed according to the procedure laid down under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1999. It is also pertinent to note that in order to get a jurisdiction to impose the penalty under Rule 5 (a) (ii) the person charged is required to be informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him stating the allegations on which such action is proposed to be taken and the Rules prescribe that such person is required to be given an opportunity to make representation rebutting allegations against him. If he prefers such representation the same shall also be considered by the disciplinary authority while proceeding under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1999. Therefore, before passing order of punishment, the disciplinary enquiry in the instant case in order to impose any minor penalties should have complied the mandate of the Rule 8 (a) & (b) of the Rules, 1999. So, before minor penalty is imposed by order dated 28/08/2012 (Annexure P/1) the procedure as prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1999 was given a go-by and in absence of that, the authority i.e. the CEO, Zila Panchayat was denuded of its power or jurisdiction to go into the issue of imposing minor penalty. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid facts since CEO, Zila Panchayat, who imposed the penalty, did not have the jurisdiction to invoke the penalty under Rule 5 (a) (ii) of the Rules, 1999, the same cannot be sustained. In a result, the same is required to be and is hereby quashed and consequently the petitioner would be entitled to the increment from the date from which he has been deprived and the arrears would be calculated accordingly and would be made good to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.