IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 12174 of 2008. Decided on 29.12.2010. Aju Kumari. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. None for respondent No. 5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The respondent-State has issued a notification on 26.06.1999 for recruitment and governing the conditions of service of Panchayat Sahayaks in the Gram Panchayats. Petitioner was offered appointment as Panchayat Sahayak on the basis of resolution dated 20.06.2002 (Annexure A-2). She joined her duties on 25.06.2002. A notice was issued to her by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat on 24.07.2004 seeking her explanation for willful absence on 14.07.2004 and 15.07.2004. She furnished the reply to the same. A second notice was issued to the petitioner on 09.08.2004. Petitioner also submitted the reply to the same. The Gram Panchayat, on the basis of resolution dated 17.08.2004, decided to terminate the services of the petitioner. Petitioner made 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - a complaint to the B.D.O., Hamirpur and D.P.O., Hamirpur on 18.08.2004. The enquiry was conducted by the Panchayat Inspector, Development Block, Hamirpur on 06.09.2004. He submitted the report through B.D.O. to D.P.O.. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Panchayat Officer, Hamirpur, under Rule 137 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj (General) Rules 1997 on 14.09.2004. However, the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat did not attend the proceedings. The District Panchayat Officer on 26.10.2004 directed the Pradhan to maintain the status quo. The S.D.M., Hamirpur cancelled the resolution No. 2, dated 17.08.2004 on 16.11.2004. The Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Ser Balouni was informed about the orders passed by the S.D.M., Hamirpur on 16.11.2004. However, fact of the matter is that the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat did not permit the petitioner to mark her presence. Thereafter, two resolutions were passed on 09.11.2004 and 24.12.2004, whereby the earlier decision not to permit the petitioner to discharge her duties was reiterated. Since the petitioner was not permitted to join her duties by the Pradhan, she filed an Original Application bearing No. 1191 of 2005 before the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The same was ordered to be treated as representation to the Secretary (Panchayati Raj and Rural Development) on 11.05.2005. The Secretary (Panchayati Raj and Rural Development) passed the orders on 21.06.2005. The petitioner was heard by the Secretary (RD & PR) in person. 2. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the action of the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, terminating the service of his client, is illegal, - 3 - arbitrary, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He has also assailed the order dated 21.06.2005. 3. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the order dated 21.06.2005. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was appointed on the basis of resolution dated 20.06.2002. She joined her duties on 25.06.2002. She had been served with a notice 24.07.2004, to which she filed the reply. She was also issued second notice on 09.08.2004. She had also filed reply to the same. It has come in the reply that the petitioner has admitted that she had made mistakes in maintaining the records and also expressed her regrets for the same. The Gram Panchayat has, thus, afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before the resolution dated 17.08.2004 was passed. Petitioner was required to discharge her duties to the satisfaction of the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat has, rather passed two more resolutions on 09.11.2004 and 24.12.2004 not to re-engage the petitioner as Panchayat Sahayak. She has also been heard in person by the Secretary (Panchayati Raj and Rural Development). The appointment of the petitioner was on part time basis. It has been made clear in condition No. - (iv) of her appointment letter dated 20.06.2002 that her services were liable to be terminated after hearing her, if not found satisfactory. Petitioner was only required to work for three hours a day and she has to work under the Gram Panchayat. The Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat was also heard by the Secretary (Panchayati Raj and Rural Development). The Pradhan has - 4 - reiterated that the work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and she has not shown any improvement. The Secretary (Panchayati Raj and Rural Development) has come to the right conclusion that the petitioner has not discharged her duties satisfactorily. However, the Secretary has also held that the Panchayat has committed procedural lapse by not issuing one month’s notice to the petitioner. The Secretary (RD & PR) has held the Pradhan to pay one month’s salary to the petitioner and also to pay arrear of remuneration, if any, prior to termination, if payable. The order passed by the Secretary (RD & PR) is reasoned and speaking. He has taken into consideration all the pleas raised by the petitioner as well as by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. He has also taken into consideration Annexure A-3, dated 26.10.2004 and A-4, dated 03.12.2004. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 29, 2010. (bhupender) - 5 -