r' Singls Beneh /" /-" ' ETQ 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) 1iB.IT PETI'nON'NO PETITIONER Thakur Ram Patel S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Patel aged about 40 years, Panchyat Karmi, Gram Panchyat Budeli, Resident of Village-Budeli, Post-Malda, Block and Tahsil-Sarangarh District-Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENTS ,..-^"' .9'°-''\'y'''~ . ^^<y^ '^-'^yc' ..-•'" .<\-.<''1 '-!••' ^y^>-" ^:y >•" '^s..- \<!^' / •f.'^ ^^ •-'t^U"'"' f-^^ ^(° fc .^.^1*" G^ 1 2. 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Panchyat & Rural Development Department D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The prescribed Authority and, Deputy Director Fanchyat and Social Welfare Raigarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) The Chief Executive Officer,, Sarangarh, Dist. Rairarh C.G. Gram Panchyat Budeli through Sarapanch of Gram Panchyat Budeli, Post-Malda thasil- Sarangarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) Jairam Jangde- (Assistant Gram-Panchyat Officer) Sachiv of Gram Panchyat-Budeli Post- Malda, Block S Tahsil Sarangarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) 226/227 OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDI& FOR ISSUSNCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CEERTIOBaRI, MaNDMTOS, PROHIBITrON AND OTHER SUI'FJ^BI.E TBRIT OR WRITS , DlfiECTION OR DIRECTIONS, OISDER OR ORDERES: XI-HC-78 +IIHMI ai+iicb 3^'srpn?w, ®Tny'is,Pxiwy wft-Ml^^^. »^i/»1*»*»l<^/^)t,*;»,*» ^R; 200 3Tr^T4a<*> (y<t^'s)^<r) STI^T 5RT f^ITSfi astrsft^rsPiRi SRiTWtrf^tr-an^r 18,8,2006 Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocats for t^ie petitionar. AArs. Anju Ahiya, t>y. 6.A. for ^espondent No.l & 2 on advonce copy. Heard. By this petition, the petitioneif dated 9.6.2006 (Annexure P-1) whe|rehy the petitioner has been removed from the post of Panchaysrt Karrai of Learned counsel for the petitl |5ram Panchayat Budeti. oner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi vide or^er dated 29.10.1995 (Annexure P-25 and now the petitioner hos been remo\jed from the post of Panchayct Karmi withouf hoiding any enquiry, as emidpged under the Chhattisgarh Panchoyat Services (&!scip!ine and Appea!) Rutei in clause pv} to (vh) ofrule Sshallh held as for as may be, in the manner ^efeinafter provided.' As per provisions of Ruie-7, frame definite charges on the bosis d ;charges, aiong witti the stert'ement o1 panchayat Service and a!so require hi specified, Q written stctemeRt of < »hi<iicf'fl-iiit«flTfftoA<iSi<^]< ^TSTf^lTgT^BT has requested for quashment of order- , 1999 (for short "Rules, 1999"). The grievance raised by the p^titioner has merit foc consideration. Ruies, 1999 deais with the Pafjchoyat Karmi ser-vice conditions. Rule 4 deois with the suspension, Ruie 5 pre^cribes the minor & mtyor penoities and removcl from the services comes uncjer the major penalty. Ruie-7 deats with tke procedure for imposing miyor ps^olties, which envisages 1+)at" tw order, imposifg on a inemlier o-f the Pancha^pt Service, any of the penalties specified passed except after a formal inijuiry Is fne discipiinary authority \s required to a!le9<»tionsand shalt communieote such the allegations, to •1+ie member of the (n to submit, within sudi tlme as may be jefence and aiso to stcte whethar he P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3^ -ifi't|ii?i<i, o^fl^'ie, Riciiuy <-fTH^tl Stl*1lch ^ 200 Sd^TMach (^cft^d^ST) 3TI^T^iTR-fi+ c^TT ^n^T ^TTT^ ^ciTWfllsa'sn^r _ •2_i—| hor|ty desires to be heard in person and the defence, the disciplinary author as are not admitted or appoint an forward to hini his report. It is admitted position re9arding removril of the petitioner ^ inquiry wce held by the respondent| very fairiy submitted that he is that the petitioner has been without holding enquiry. Therefore from the post of Panchayot Karmi v ex-fw.ie, iHegal and contrary to issuance of notice to respondent No unnecessarily delay the matter, respondent No.3 <& 4 this petition i^ cjear that if respondent No.3 &4 stj are at liberty to file I.A. for recallin| of after heann9 both the parties. In the resutt, the petition o} order dated 9.6.2006 (Annexure P-| the removal of the petitioner from t| Consequently, M.(W.)P. No.33| Certified copy as per- ruies. after receipt of the written statement of may himseif inquire into such char9es :nquiry Officer to hold the inquiry and lin|3 °bl'i|fa41^ imRfffffSc^iRKrAK ^srf^q'sn^r th<^t before passing the impugned order )rom the post of Panchayat Karmi, no such ^ and learned counsel for the petitioner quesjtioning the impugned order to the extent remo|ved from the post of Panchayat Karmi as far os the removcl of the petitioner de impugned order is concerned, same is tfie provisions of Rules, 1999, as such, |s.3 & 4 will be a futile exercise and it will [therefore, without issuin9 notices to being disposed of. However, it is made ii feel ag9rieved by this order, then they this order ond that I.A. wil! be disposed petitioner is allowed and the impu9ned 1) is hereby quashed to the extent that ie post of Panchayat Karmi is iilegal. ?1/06 also stand disposed of. Sd/- L.C.Bhado! Jiiage ^j^ .//^'y.^0 ^'^' y P.T.O.