cv PETITIONER \^- RESPONDENTS IN THE mOH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P,_.(S1 N0. ^56J / 2008 Vidya Bushcin Mishra S/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Mishra aged about 37 years resident of Village - ^v^.^<- . " ,: •'\^J:^-"' .,. Nawagarh Tahsil - Nawagarh ^'. ..--" e^ S> District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) VERSUS l.State of CUhattisgarh Through - Secretary Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Sarpanch , Gram ^ , District gar 4. Collector ^ ^^ ^ ',''1^^ {lti The Nagar Panchayat Nawagarh through President of Nagar Panchayat Nawagarh, District Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) ^ (7) The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Nawagarh, District - Janjgir -Champa (C.G. II WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ ii BB taisy£ifc ^ .« HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPU PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) N0.6261 OF 2008 Vidya Bushan Mishra Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition underArticles 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ajit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe StatS. Shri Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate for the respondent No.6. Shri Suresh Pandey, Advocate for the respondent No.7. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 5th day ofApril, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 15/10/2008 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh in appeal case N0.287/A.89/03.04 [Vidyabhuhan Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another) by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that initially the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary on 02/02/1996. Thereafter, on the basis of certain allegation, in place of the petitioner, one L.P. Yadav appointed as Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director, Panchayat, in which interim order was granted by the Director, Panchayat. Thereafter, the said interim order was vacated on 28/09/2004. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.3810/2004 (Vidya Bhushan Mishra v.Kamal Kumar Tandon & Others). This Court, by order dated 25/10/2004 allowed the writ petition. The respondent authorities, in an illegal and arbitrary manner without following the due process of law and without complying the 6. provisions of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, (for short 'the Rules, 1999'), removed the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary. Thereagainst, the petitioner approached the Director, Panchayat by filing an appeal, which was rejected by the Director, Panchayat by order dated 15/10/2008 (Annexure - P/1). Thus, this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no charge-sheet has been issued and no enquiry has been conducted before the impugned removal order was passed. The impugned action was taken without complying with the mandatory provisions of Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that admittedly, no enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 was conducted. ] have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The question of law involved in this case is asto whether the petitioner, who was declared as Panchayat Secretary, can be removed from the post without complying with proper procedures as laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. Admittedly, as pleaded by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was removed without supplying the charge-sheet and without conducting any enquiry, was not controverted by the respondents. It is well-settled principle of law as enshrined in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 that if the Gram Panchayat proposes to remove a Panchayat Karmi including Panchayat Secretary, the same may be done in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999. . .-^.v% '?,.». ^ ,^ v;, "s--^,-y £/ ilv~^w".,// 8. 9. This Court, ih Dhaluram Kosaria v. State of CG and others , observed as under: "19. It is further admitted by all the parties that the procedure for holding an enquiry is prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 for imposition of major pen'alty, that has not been followed. Hence, the termination is bad and vitiated on the ground of non-compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of the principles of natural justice. It amounts to infraction of not only the provisions of Rule 7 ofthe Rules 1999 but the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India also. The order is in fact pena] in nature having civil consequences and as such the elaborate provision of Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 was applicable in the case of the petitioner before terminating his services." Further, in Beegam Ram v. State of CG and others , this Court observed as under: 10. "7. With regard to exercise of power by the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions have laid down the principles of law that the High Court has jurisdiction and power to interfere if the Court is satisfied that the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings, clear ignorance and utter disregard of provisions of law and/or a grave injustice or gross violation of justice has occasioned thereby. In the present case, Revenue Authorities/Tribunals have completely ignored the statutory provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 and there is manifest error of the facts on the face of record, without requiring any investigation or enquiry. Admittedly, the alleged show cause notice dated 27.2.2000 (Annexure R/3) could not have been served through the Gudi Kotwar on 24.02.2000, three days before the issue of show cause notice. No notice as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 was issued to the petitioner. Prior to submission of the enquiry report on 29.6.2000 (Annexure R/5), the Gram Panchayat resolved to remove the petitioner from his service on 18.05.2000 and pursuant thereof, order of the removal was passed on 30.05.2000 (Annexure P/3)" Non-compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of principles of natural justice tantamounts to infraction of not only the provisions 12006(2)CGLJ 186 2 2006 LT (CG) 41 of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 but the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India also. The order of removal being penal in nature, visiting with civil consequences, cannot be passed without holding enquiry in accordance with the elaborate provisions, ais prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. It is, thus, clear that the respondents have not followed the statutory provisions of law before passing the impugned order. 11. In view of foregoing, the impugned order dated 15/10/2008 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Director, Panchayat, is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to 30% back wages. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to take fresh steps in accordance with Rule 7 of.the Rutes 1999, ifso advised. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Arun