Order : (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18/09/2017 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. by which he has been terminated from the post of Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Achanakpur, Bhatapara under Janpad Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. The petitioner has sought following reliefs in this petition:- “(i)That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the order impugned dated 18/09/2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.3. (ii)That this Hon’ble Court may kindly please to call the entire record leading to issuance of the impugned order from the possession of the respondents including the show cause notice and inquiry report if any. (iii)Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. The brief facts leading to the disposal of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi and was working as Secretary Gram Panchayat, Achanakpur, Bhatapara under Janpad Panchayat Rajnandgaon. A show cause notice dated 17/04/2017 was issued to him with an allegation that he has committed financial irregularities during various construction work, he was also directed that he is required to file the relevant bills for the expenditure. When the required bills and the show cause notice was not duly replied, he was again sent a notice dated 14/08/2017 with a direction that this would be last opportunity to him to clarify with the allegations made against him. It was also alleged that he has committed financial irregularities worth Rs.14,53,640/-. Though the petitioner has submitted the bills and the certificates, however it was alleged that the petitioner has submitted certificates/bills in respect of the expenditure only to the tune of Rs.5,56,570/- and for the rest of the financial irregularities he has not submitted any bill, however surprisingly, on 18/09/2017 impugned order of removal from service was passed while making allegation of financial irregularities, while invoking Rule 5(b)(vii) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1999’). The petitioner as well as Sarpanch of concerned Gram Panchayat has moved application before the CEO, Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon stating that due to inadvertent mistake they could not file the respective bills in respect of the expenditure, now they are filing the same and as such it may kindly be taken and the action taken against them may kindly be withdrawn, however said application was not considered and vide impugned order the petitioner has been removed from the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Achanakpur. It has been stated by the petitioner that neither due enquiry has been initiated nor he was granted opportunity of hearing before passing of order for removal from service. The financial irregularities as alleged by the petitioner has not been established, however without granting any opportunity of hearing and without following procedures as prescribed under the ‘Rules of 1999’ he has been illegally removed from service, as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 3. The respondents No.1 and 2 the State has filed reply while supporting the impugned order and further stating that due procedures have been followed and notices have been issued, however the petitioner has failed to response the notice and he has further failed to prove that no financial irregularities has been committed by him. The CEO Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon who has passed the impugned order and the CEO Janpad Panchayat Rajnandgaon has jointly filed their reply to the petition stating that the petitioner has committed financial irregularities and inspite of several notices issued to him as well as the Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat they have failed to explain about the financial irregularities committed by them. A sum of Rs.14,53,640/- has been misappropriated and upon issuance of notice, certificate and bills of expenditure only worth Rs.5,56,570/- has been produced and rest of the expenditure were unexplained. Proper procedure as well as ample opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner as such no interference is required. The impugned order for removal has rightly been passed, the petition being sans merit, is liable to be dismissed. 4. Proper procedure as well as ample opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner as such no interference is required. The impugned order for removal has rightly been passed, the petition being sans merit, is liable to be dismissed. 4. Shri Anirudh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing on behalf of Shri Rajendra Patel, Advocate submits that while passing removal order the authorities have committed illegality and have not followed the procedures as envisaged under Rule 7 of ‘the Rules of 1999’ and without granting any opportunity of hearing, they have passed the impugned order in a very hurry and haste manner. Rule 7 of ‘the Rules of 1999’ provides a specific procedure before removal of a member of Panchayat from his services in which due enquiry after giving proper opportunity of hearing is required to be given which has not been given as such the impugned order is required to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 as well as learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 have categorically submitted that several notices have been issued and served upon the petitioner making allegation regarding financial irregularities worth Rs.14,53,640/- however inspite of the notices the petitioner failed to submit the required bills regarding expenditure in respect of work done by him. Upon repeated notices he could only submit bills/expenditure worth Rs.5,56,570/-. Due procedure as well as sufficient opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, as such, the petitioner could not make out a case for interference, the petition is required to be dismissed in the threshold. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the documents annexed with the petition with utmost circumspection. I have carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the CEO Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon. In the notice as well as in the order impugned allegations regarding financial irregularities have been made by the respondent/authorities. From the perusal of the order it seems that first show cause notice was issued on 17/04/2017 seeking his explanation in respect of the financial irregularities pertaining to year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, however when it was not replied, a second show cause notice was also issued on 27/05/2017. From the perusal of the order it seems that first show cause notice was issued on 17/04/2017 seeking his explanation in respect of the financial irregularities pertaining to year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, however when it was not replied, a second show cause notice was also issued on 27/05/2017. A third show cause notice was also issued on 24/08/2017, however when the satisfactory explanation was not given by the petitioner and out of the total financial irregularities worth Rs.14,53,640/- only Rs.5,56,570/- has been explained by the petitioner then on 18/09/2017 the impugned order of termination has been passed. Subsequently on 22/09/2017 the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat has produced the bills of the rest of the work. The petitioner has also filed a representation dated 25/09/2017 stating that the submission of the bill may be considered and the order impugned may be withdrawn. 7. The first and foremost question for consideration in this petition is whether the procedure as envisaged under Rule 5 & 7 of ‘the Rules of 1999’ has been followed or not? 8. For ready reference relevant Rules of Rule 5 of ‘the Rules of 1999’ is quoted herein below:- “5. Penalties .- The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided by imposed on a member of the Panchayat Service, namely:- (a) Minor Penalties (i) Censure (ii) Withholding of increments, stagnation allowances or promotions, with or without cumulative effect (iii) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the panchayat or the State Government by negligence or breach of orders. (b) Major Penalties (iv) Reduction in rank including reduction to a lower post or time- scale or to a lower stage in a time-scale, (v) Compulsory retirement, (vi) Removal from service not disqualifying for future employment, (vii) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment: Provided that in the case of member who have been allocated to the panchayat service and who according to the terms and conditions of their service which were immediately applicable to them before such allocation were not liable to the penalty or fine, no penalty or fine shall be indicated upon them. 9. Rule 7 of ‘the Rules of 1999’ is quoted herein below:- “7. Procedure for imposing major penalties . 9. Rule 7 of ‘the Rules of 1999’ is quoted herein below:- “7. Procedure for imposing major penalties . -(1) No order, imposing on a member of the Panchayat Service, any of the penalties specified in clause (iv) to (via) of rule 5 shall be passed except after a formal inquiry is held as far as may be, in the manner hereinafter provided (2) When an order for formal inquiry has been made, the disciplinary authority shall frame Definite charges on the basis of allegations and shall to communicate such charges, alongwith the statement of the allegations, to the member of the Panchayat Service and also require him to submit, within such time as may be specified a written statement of defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. (3) The person against whom inquiry is to be held shall, for the purpose of preparing toe defence, be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such records as he may specify: Provided that such permission may be refused if, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in the opinion of the Enquiry Officer such records are not relevant for the purpose or it is against the public interest to allow his access thereto. (4) On receipt of the written statement of defence or if any such statement is not received within the time specified, the disciplinary authority may himself enquire into such of the charges as are not admitted or appoint an Enquiry Officer to hold the inquiry and forward to him his report and if advised, his recommendation alongwith all the inquiry papers. (5) 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 Servant approved by the Enquiry Officer but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose, unless the person nominated by the disciplinary authority as aforesaid is a legal practitioner or unless the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits. (6) If the servant of the Panchayat Service desires to be heard in person, he shall be so heard. If he so desires or if the disciplinary authority so directs, an oral enquiry shall be held by the Enquiry officer. (6) If the servant of the Panchayat Service desires to be heard in person, he shall be so heard. If he so desires or if the disciplinary authority so directs, an oral enquiry shall be held by the Enquiry officer. At such inquiry evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted and the person charged shall be entitled to cross examine the witness, to give evidence in person, to produce documentary evidence, if any, and to have such witness called as he may wish: Provided that the Enquiry Officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. (7) At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer shall prepare a report of the inquiry, recording his findings on each of the charges together with reasons therefor. (8) The proceedings conducted against the persons charged shall contain a sufficient record of (i) the charges framed against such person and the statement of allegations; (ii) the written statement of defence if any; (iii) the oral evidence taken in the course of the inguiry; (iv) the documentary evidence considered in the course of the inquiry~ (v) the orders, if any, made by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority as the case may be with regard to the inquiry: (vi) a report setting out the findings on each charge and the reasons therefor. (9) the Enquiry Officer, if he is other than the disciplinary authority, shall submit the records of the proceedings mentioned in clause (8) above to the disciplinary authority without recommendation relating to the penalty to be imposed. The disciplinary authority shall consider the record of the enquiry and its findings on each charge, having regard to the findings on the charges and the record (if the proceedings) if he is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of rule 5 should be imposed, it shall furnish to the person charged a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer, and where, the disciplinary authority is not the Enquiry Officer a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. (10) The disciplinary authority shall consider the representation, if any, made by the person charged in response to the notice and determine the penalty, if any, should be imposed and shall pass appropriate order on the case. (11) The orders passed by the disciplinary authority shall be communicated to the member of the Panchayat Service, who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer an where, disciplinary authority is not the Enquiry Officer, a statement of its findings together with the brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, unless they have already been supplied to the person charged.” 10. From the perusal of the aforesaid Rules, it is apparently clear that the required procedures have not been followed, a formal enquiry is required to be conducted before passing any removal order. The disciplinary authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations made against the delinquent. The delinquent has to be given proper opportunity to submit his reply and defence and he has to state whether he desires to be heard in person or not. The Rules further states that in order to prepare defence he is required to be permitted to inspect and take extract from the records and if it is being refused, reasons are required to be assigned. Further after receipt of the reply/written statement of the delinquent, the disciplinary authority may enquire into the charges, appoint an enquiry officer and conduct an enquiry while giving every opportunity of hearing to the delinquent. If the panchayat servant desires to be heard in person he should be heard while giving due opportunity of hearing. He is also required to be given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. In sum and substance, the delinquent has to be given every opportunity of hearing and due procedure at every stage has to be followed in its letter and spirit. 11. That the removal from service is a major penalty which is in the nature of civil consequences and therefore if any order bearing civil consequences is to be passed, the required procedures as well as opportunity of hearing would be sacrosanct and unless and until the proper procedure as well as principles of audi alteram partem is fulfilled, no order can be passed and it cannot be recognized too. In a civilized society no one can be punished without granting him opportunity of hearing to make defence. 12. In an identical petition coordinate bench of this Court has passed an order in case of Prakash Chand Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WPS No.1846/2011 on 15/07/2015 and it was held as under:- “(3)The short issue arisen for determination is - whether services of a Panchayat Secretary can be dispensed with or terminated without conducting any enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of the C.G. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (in short "the Rules, 1999")? (4)Admittedly, on certain allegations, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and eventually, an enquiry report was submitted vide Annexure R/4 and thereafter, show cause notice was issued to him on 28.04.2008 vide Annexure R/3, therefore before removing him the principles of natural justice have been complied with. However, at the same time, it is to be seen that a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Rooplal Nayak vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2006(4) M.P.H.T. 99 (C.G.) has held that any of the major penalty prescribed under Rule 5(b) (iv) of the Rules, 1999 cannot be imposed on a member of Panchayat service to whom the said Rules are applicable without conducting regular Departmental Enquiry as envisaged under 7 of the Rules, 1999. (5)In the case at hand, an enquiry officer was appointed, who conducted some sort of enquiry and submitted an enquiry report, however, that runs short of a departmental enquiry as contemplated under Rule 7. The said provisions uses the words "formal inquiry" with further stipulation that when an order for 'formal enquiry has been made, the disciplinary authority shall frame Definite charges, communicate the same to the delinquent along with the statement of allegations, requiring him to submit within the specified time a written statement of defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. Thereafter, the defence is required to be permitted to inspect and take extracts from the records, which can be refused for reasons to be recorded in writing. On submission of reply by the delinquent, the disciplinary authority may himself enquire or appoint an enquiry officer. Appointment of Presenting Officer and seeking assistance of some other officers by the delinquent is also contemplated therein. On submission of reply by the delinquent, the disciplinary authority may himself enquire or appoint an enquiry officer. Appointment of Presenting Officer and seeking assistance of some other officers by the delinquent is also contemplated therein. The enquiry officer is also enabled to record evidence and thereafter, at the conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer is supposed to prepare enquiry report, the copy of which is required to be furnished to the delinquent. Thus, the 'formal inquiry' envisaged under the Rules is akin to the procedure prescribed for a regular enquiry under Rule 14 of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.” 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Shakuntla & Ors. reported in (2010) 12 SCC 448 has held at paragraph 15 as under:- “15.The discretion to change a policy in exercise of the executive power, which appears to be the case in the present matter, must be exercised fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. It has been observed by this Court, as noted hereinabove, that a question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not, is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of the given case. It was rightly held that where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation to act in a different manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable itself shall be labelled as arbitrary.” 14.Likewise the Honb’le Supreme Court in a recent case reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3032 in between GLAS Trust Co. LLC Vs. Byju Raveendran & ors. has held at paragraphs 69 and 70 as under:- “69.In a consistent line of precedent, this court has held that "inherent powers" may be exercised in cases where there is no express provision under the legal framework. However, such powers cannot be exercised in contravention of, conflict with or in ignorance of express provisions of law. We may helpfully refer to the observations of a two- judge Bench of this court in one such case. However, such powers cannot be exercised in contravention of, conflict with or in ignorance of express provisions of law. We may helpfully refer to the observations of a two- judge Bench of this court in one such case. In Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills P. Ltd J Kanhayalal Bhargavas, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 215 a two-judge Bench of this court, speaking through justice K. Subba Rao (as the learned chief justice then was), opined See page 45 of 37 Comp Cas. "Having regard to the said decisions, the scope of the inherent power of a court under section 151 of the Code may be defined thus: The inherent power of a court is in addition to and complementary to the powers expressly conferred under the Code. But that power will not be exercised if its exercise is inconsistent with, or comes into conflict with, any of the powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred by the other provisions of the Code. If there are express provisions exhaustively covering a particular topic, they give rise to a necessary implication that no power shall be exercised in respect of the said topic otherwise than in the manner prescribed by the said provisions. Whatever limitations are imposed by construction on the provisions of section 151 of the Code, they do not control the undoubted power of the court conferred under section 151 of the Code to make a suitable order to prevent the abuse of the process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) 70. When a procedure has been prescribed for a particular purpose exhaustively, no power shall be exercised otherwise than in the manner prescribed by the said provisions. In such cases, the court must be circumspect in invoking its "inherent powers" to deviate from the prescribed procedure. If such deviation is made, the court must justify why this was necessary to "prevent the abuse of the process of the court.” 15.If proper procedure has not been followed and due opportunity of hearing has not been granted, then such type of order cannot be confirmed. In the present case, none of the procedures as envisaged under Rule 7 of ‘the Rules 1999’ has been followed which is apparent from the notice as well as the impugned order. In the present case, none of the procedures as envisaged under Rule 7 of ‘the Rules 1999’ has been followed which is apparent from the notice as well as the impugned order. Time and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court has passed several judgments while indicating that the Rules as prescribed are not meant only to see the same they are required to be followed. Considering the over all aspects of the matter, I am having no hesitation while quashing the impugned order dated 18/09/2017 by which the petitioner, a panchayat karmi (Secretary) Gram Panchayat has been removed from his services without following Rule 7 of ‘the Rules of 1999. The petitioner is required to be reinstated with all consequential reliefs. 16. With these observations, the petition is allowed. No order as to costs.