? IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRI PETITION NO.624TOF 2005 PETITIONER : 03$ \ (o . A 03.x ’Q"§‘:§v‘$¥ I ‘95» ‘ / Prem Shankar Deota, S/o Sri Madan Lal Deota, Aged about 34 years, R/o Ballumar, Janpad Panchayat Gharghoda, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). Versus / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE \_~ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W, 4N??? of“ w ."" State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department 0f Panchayat and Social Welfare, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. /I. Deputy Director, , Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gharghoda,‘ District Raigarh (C.G.). Janpad Panchayat, Through the Chief Executive Officer, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.). Gram Pranchayat, Ballumar, Through The Sarpanch, Ballumar, Janpad Panchayat, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.). T @ ‘ mwm (Wt?) m 206 Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel awyer for the State/respondents 1 to 3. \ Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate or the respondent No.5. With the consent ofthe parties, he matter is heard finallyr The petitioner was appointed a Panchayat Karmi on 12.09.2005 (Annexure P/2). Subsequently, by order dated 23 H2005 (Annexure P/l), the services ofvthe petitioner as Panchayat Karmi was ter inated. The petitioner has impugned the said order dated 23.1 1.2005 in this writ pe ition on the ground that the impugned order terminating the services of the petiti ner from the post of Panchayat Karmi was passed without following the provisi ns enshrined in Rule 7 of C.G. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 999 (for short “the Rules”). Shri Ahuja submits that Rule 7 provides for detailed procedure for imposing major penalties i.e. removal from serv ce. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, removal from service comes] ithin the purview of major penalty. Learned counsel appearing foi” the respondents fairly submit that before passing the impugned order, no opportpinity of hearing, whatsoever has been given to the petitioner. i A Division Bench of this Court‘ in its order dated 25.07.2006 passed in W.P. No. 1656 of 2004 has held that Rule 7 hf the Rules have to be followed in the case of f *7 “r e termination ofa Panchayat employee. This Court in Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. S/tate of C.G. & Others‘, Beegan Ram Vs. State of C.G. & Othersz, and Prakash Chand Soni Vs. State of C.G. & OthersS, , held that the non-compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of principles of i natural justice tantamount to infractioril of not only the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, but provisions of Articlé 311 (2) of the Constitution of India also. The mad ”Wang A W r 31m anW am 31m ma; mmm am? “N l . mm WE fa?m P é é? 3%?m i’f (SB: Hon’ble Shri Pritinker Diwaker, .) 28.08.2009 Shri Shailesh Ahuja, Advocate r the petitioner. $3 WWWW M ééWL WWW W 200 ,1, mmfa‘aia; ammm mm (Wm WW§WWH mmmwm $Wm [WM -m. order of removal being penal in natur , is visited with civil consequences and cannot Vbe passed without holding the enqui in accordance with the elaborate provisions as a “prescribed in,Rule 7 ofthe Rules of 1 99. ” " ~ For the reasons and the discus ion made hereinabove, and the dicta laid down , bytthe Court in various cases (supra) the order dated 23.] 1.2005 (Annexure P/l) is bad and is quashed. ‘ On the question of back wag , no foundation has been laid to establish the fact whether the petitioner was gai ully employed elsewhere or not during this period. Even otherwise, keeping in vi w the fact that the termination order is vitiated not on'merit, but on account of non ompliance of the statutory provisions before ' terminating the services of the petitiorler, 50% back wages would be sufficient in the interest ofjustice. It is, however, mad clear that this order shall not come in the way of the respondents for initiating the p oceedings against the petitioner, if they are so advised, strictly in accordance with ldw and in terms of the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 ofthe Rules. Accordingly, the writ petition Vs allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. V l Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge l x I t ;/ l. 2006 (2) CGIJ 186 2. 2006 LT CG 41 3. 2005 LT (CG) 151 ,wwt. v-2v