^ HtGHCOURTOFCHHATTtSGARHATBILASPUR ^irigle Bench : Hon'ble Justiee ShriSatish K. Agnihotri Writ Petition No. 4657 of2005 Petitioner Respondents: ^hoK Kumar Raj,S/o Late Shri Dasolal Raj, aged about 37 years, R/o Vjll - Donasagar; Gram Panehayat Mohada, Tah. Kota, Dist. Bilaspur (CG). Vereus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Throygh : The Secretary, Department of Panchayat, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Building, Raipur(CG). 2. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kota, Dist. Bilaspur 3. Sarpanch, Gram Panehayat Mohada, Through Manliaran Singh Marksim, Gram Panehayat Mohada Block, Kota, Dist. Bilaspur (CG). Present: ShriBharatRajput.counselforthepetitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri Ravindra Agrawal,counselforrespondentNo.3. OROER (Passedw 9th April, 2007) By thispetition under Article 226/227 of ttie Gonstitutionoflndia, the petitioner impugns the order dated 25-8-2005 (Annexure-P/2) whereunder he has been removed from the post of Panehayat Secretary. 2) Thefacte in nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary; Gram Panchayat Mohada on 2-11-1995 ^nnexure-P/1). The petitioner received a notice dated 30-7-?005 (Mnexwe-PIS) on 3-8-2005 fbrgivingreply on 4-8-2005 to initiate acUon against him ahd thereafter, wittiout issuir^ proper charge sheet, 'K .A as envisaged under Rule 7 pf the Ghhattisgarh Panchayat Senflce (DisciplineandAppeal)Rules, 1999 (forshort"UieRutes, 1999') the impugnetforderdated 25-8-2005 (Annexure-P/2)hasbeenissued. 3) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order impugned, herein, is not in consonance with the provisionsof the Rules, 1908, as noopportunity of hearing was afforded to the peUtioner by issuing a charge sheet after framing definite charges on the basis of allegations and no enquiry was held. 4) Admittedly, the Village Panchayat, before passing the impugned termination order hasnotcomplied w'th the provisjons of Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 19%. This Gourt in Dhaluram Kosaria vs. State of C.G. & Others1, Beegan Ram vs.State of C.G.& Others2 and Prakash Chand Sonj vs. State of C.G. & Others has held that the non- compliance ofthe statutory provisions and denial of prindples of natural justice tantamounte to infraction ofnot only the provisions of Rule7 of the Rules, 1999 but the provisionsofArticle311(2) oftheConstitution of India also. The order of removal being penaf in nature, visiting with civil consequences.cannotbe passedwithout holding the enquiry in aecordance with the elaborate provisions as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rutes,1999. 5) Itis thus clear that the respendente have not followed(fte statutory provisions of taw before passing the impugned order. 6) In view of the foreaoing, the petition deserves to be and is allo%ed. Theimpugned orderAhnexure-P/Tisquashed. No costs. 7) On the questionof backwages, nofoundation has beenlaid to establish the fact ftat whether the petitioner Was gainfully employed elsewhere or not during this period. Eyen otherwise keeping in view 12006(%CGU18e 2 2006 LT (CG) 41 2005 LT(CGj 151 EK ^ ^ K^»s. ^-^"?^ :i^M IftlSiX l!*(^^SU^ S5S^S'*Sfu^sS ^^[.: that the terminatlon order has been vitiated not on merit, but onaccount of non-compllance of thestatutory provisions before terminating e services of the pefltioner, 30% back wages would be sufficient in the interestofiustice. • Sd/- SatishK.Agnii,otri Judge /'