IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. / 5<3 ^ / 2005 ^ PETITIONER Dhruv Lai, S/o Shri Dhiraji, ag.ed 29 years, Occupation-working as Secretary of Gram Panchayat Chilfi, Tahsil Lormi^ District Bilaspur (C.G.) -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS •€§^' 6- ^'" o i ^€>e^4 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhavan^ Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2- Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.5 ^3. Joint Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, Raipur (C.G.) ^4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Chief Enecutive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^6. Sarpanch, Gram Paachayat Chilfi, Janpad Panchayat Lormi^ Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT, ORDERS OR DIRECTION. ^gf^ ^^^oyl 5; BiL^srus ^\ -^^ ~^^t CLE^to 55 *11*IWI ^TT^ ^wi ^Ktioq, y-rfl^^i^ Rl<4i^^ LO ^-/Od. ( ^3^/2-£>Z>^ ^200 3TT^$Tq^? (4c|I^d<g;) 3ff^^T^TR4(ch wnw^^Ts^ypp )1»""""NN? '}'" ?^TTST^^f^ OT^$T 09-11-2005, Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Shri Arun Sao, learnedl respondents 1 to4. Shri Vinay Pandey, !eame<j Heard. The petitioner was appoit Gram Panchayat, Chilfi. The pej the meeting of Gram Panchayat in the meeting on 09.04.2005 anc petitioner. Accordingly, the p^ 23.04.2005 (Annexure-P/4). Th| Article 226 of the Constitution of| dated 23.04.2005 as being illeg| Panchayat Service (Disciplin( "Rules,1999"). Shri Rajeev Shrtvastavg|; petitioner submits that Rule 7 inquiry before imposing a majoj termination ofservice isa major (vi)oftheRules,1999. Shri Vlnay Pandey, learn^ submits that the petitioner was ^i' the Gram Sabha resolved to Learned counsel further submiN illeg^tl wi<4To<n<i +ti+ioT^f^l^l ^Ri^i^ ^arf^rsn^ST ^arned counsel for the petitiorier. Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the State/ counsel for respondent No.6. |ted as Secretary (Panchayat Karmi) of :itioner was issued a notice to appear in |on 09.04.2005. The petitioner appeared the Gram Sabha resolved to remove the ttitioner was removed by order dated ^ petitioner has ftled this petition under |lndia challenging the legaiity of the order |al and contrary to the provisions of the and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short learned counsel appearing for the f the Rules, 1999 provides for formal penalty. Learned further submits that enalty as specified in Rule 5, Clause (b) counsel appearing for respondent No.6 ven proper opportunity of hearing before 'emove the petitioner from th.e service. that the grievance of the petitioner that XI-HC-78 vnyq^qiqic^q, y-<^|^<!|<i, Rrtl^^ -56 *1!*IC5T^<TT^ Uj.f</06' (ct^€>{zA^ ^200 3TI^?T^ee (4c|[^c|<^) 3TI^^T<^TR4Jch WTT3TI^$T^1TO ^ / '^ f^ the procedure as specified in Rule a technical objection as the rule followed. Admittedly, there was no the Rules 1999before removing Having heard learned co< records, it is found that the servi from his service without complyin of the Rules 1999. No inquiry from his service, as such the im{ For the reasons stated ab' 23.04.2005 (Annexure-P/4) is qi 17 of the Rules 1999 was not followed is cjf principles of natural justice has been reinstatement with 50% of the ba from the datere^eipt of copy of thj The petition stands al!owe< astocosts. Consequently, M.W.P. No. Certified copy as per rules, cpiq[c><i)Ti ^i+ioT^ff^Sf ^Fjl^i^ ^ari^FTW^^T foi|mal inquiry as provided under Rule 7 of th|e petitioner from his service. |nsel for the parties and perused the ;e of the petitioner has been removed with the statutory provisions ofRule 7 fas held before removing the petitioner pu^ned order is bad and illegal. ^ve, the impugned removal order dated |ashed and the petitioner is entitled to ;k-wages, within a period of one month ^ order. to the extent indicated above. No order 533/2005 stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge cK