.4,r^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATriSGARH: BILASRJR W.P. No. 597 of 2004 Pet{tion&- Respondents Chandjkeshwar Singh Versus The State of Chhaffisgarh & others ^ Postfor order on jZ^June, 2007 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge •w^^ i \}^ Petitioner ,^ Respodnents mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetitionNo. 597 of2004 Chandikeshwar Smph. s/o Ram Narayan Smgh, aged about 31 years, Secretary, Gram Panchayat Obri, Tehsil Pal, District Surguja, C.G. -Versus- : 1. The State ofChhattisgarh, throu^i Secretary. Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. 2. Gram Panchayat Obri, TeteU Pal, District Surguja, C.G. through Sarpanch, Address: At//Post Obri, Tehsil Pal, District Surguja, C.G. 3. Collector, Surguja, C.G. 4. Shoblmath Giipta, Up Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Obri, At/Post obri, Tehsil Pal, District Surguja, C.G. SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Shri A. K. Prasad; Advocate for the petitioner. Slm Yashwant Singh Thakur, Govt. ^^dvocate for the respondents No. 1 and 3. None for the respondents No. 2 and 4. ORDER ^ (Passed on this^ay ofJune, 2007) Ilie present petition filed under Article 226/227 ofthe Comtitution ofliidia impugns the order dated 30.1.2004 (.^mexureP/12) passsd by the respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been terminated from the post ofPanchayat Karmi of fhe Gram Paiichayat Obri, Tefeil Pa1- District Su^uja, on the ground that the petitioner has conimitted irregularities in performance ofhis duties. The undisputed facts, m nutsheU, are that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi by order dated 6.12.1997 (.^Limexwe P/l). The petitioner was thereafter declared as Panchayat Secretary ofthe said Gi'am Panchayat. ® fr' ^ The order dated 16.12.2003 (Aimexare P/3) was issued to the petitioner by the Sarpanch; wherem it was directed to fhe petitioner to producc certam documents and registers of the Gram Panchayat, oonceming the period February, 2000 to November, 2.003, on 17.12.2003, very next day. It was further stated that in the event of any lapse or dereliction on the part of the petitioner, there might be initiated a disciplinaiy proceedmg against Mm for removal from tfae post ofPanchayat Karmi. fa compliance ofthe above order dated 16.12.2003 the petitioner produced all the documents before tiie Sarpanch ofthe Gram Panchayat on 17.12.2003 and obtamed a receipt thereof (Asmexure P/4). Accordmg to leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner, the respondent No.4 - Shri Shobh Nath Gupta, Up-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, wrote a letter dated 20.12.2003 (Amiexure P/5) to the petitioner, demanding a ofRs. 2,00,OOCS/- from the petitioner, in default threatenmg removal froin the post of Secretary. Before writing of the letter by the respoiident No,4, an amount of about Rs. 15;00,000/- was received by fhe Gram Panchayat, Obri for undertaking certaiti worte. After receipt offhe letter oflhreat dated 20.12.2003 &om the ^sposidctrt No.4, the petitioner made a complaint to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur on 20.12.2003 (Aimexure P/6). The petitioner also sent a complamt on 26.12.2003 (Aimexure P/7) to tfae Ihspector General ofPolice, Surguja Range. Thereafter, accordmg to leamed counsd appearing for the petitioner, fhe petitioner filed a complaint case m the Cdwt of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj under Sections 294, 506 Part-H and 383 ofthe Indian Penal Code on 22.1.2004 (Amiexure P/8). It is stated by leamed counsel for the petitioner that cognizance of the same was taken by the Magistrate cotioemed. It was sent to the Police for mvestigation and report. The petitioner u^. t; 9. 10. abo made a complamt dated 21.1.2004 (Armexure P/9) to the Collectorwith regard to the above inddent. 'The Collector, Surguja vide order dated 12.1.2004 (Annexure P/10) directed for convening meetmgs of all Gram Sabhas, constituted m district Surguja, on 23.1.2004. Accordingly, me&ting of seven Gram Sabhas, falling m Gtam Panchayat Obri was held and thereafter the impugned orcter dated 30.1.2004 was passed. It h mentioned m the impugned order dated 30.1.2004 (Amiexare P/12) that in the meetings of the Panchayat dated 18.1.2004 and 30.1.2004, in view oftfae resolutions dated 23.1.2004, 24.1.2004, 25.1.2004 passed in various Gram Sabha meetings; the petitioner was terminated from the post of Panchayat Karmi as he has allegedly coinmitted irregularities while working as Panchayat Karmi. Pursuant to thc said Gram Sabha resolutions, the services of the petitioner as Panchayat Kamii was terminated w.s.f. 30.1.2004. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner farther submite tfaat Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 provides for procedure before temimating service ofa member of Paiichayat. In fhe mstairt case, the said provisions were not followed, no defmite charges were framed and the petitioner was not servred with the artides of charges before holdmg an enquiry leadmg to temiination of the petitioner from his services. Leamed coumel farther submits that though it was an appointment on temporary basis but the termination order was passed on the basis 6f the allegation that the petitiorier has commit iiTegularities in performance of hi^ duties as Panchayat Karmi. He further submits that the order is stigmatic and removal from service comes wifhin the purview of major penalty; the same could not have been passed without following the procedure as laid down in the provisions of law, as presoribed m Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Semce (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short <th&.Rules,1999'). (@ ^;- 11. Despite service of several notices, the respondent No.2 Gram Panchayat" Obri and respondent No.4 Shobhnafh Gupta, Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat- Obri, have chosen not to appear m the proceedmg. 12. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 3 would categorically submit that on perusal of the papers, it is evident that the procedure prescribed m Rule 7 offhe Rules, 1999 appears to have not been foUowed. The petitioner was appomted on 6.12.1997 and without followmg the due process oflaw, the petitioner has been removed on 30.1.2004 on the basis of the resolutiom passed by the concemed Gi'am Sabhas, which is not sustainable m law. 13. x^dmittedly, the Gram Panchayat before passing the impugned tei'mination orcler has not complied with the provisions DfRule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999. This -Court m Dlialisram Kosaria Vs. State of C.G. & otherg ; Beegaii Ram Vs, State ofC.& & others2 aiid Prakash Chand Soni Vs. State of C.G. & otlwrs has held that the iion-compiiance of the statototy provisions and denial ofprmciples ofnaturaljustice tantamounts to infraction ofnot only the provisions ofRule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999 but the provisions ofArtide 311 (2) of the Constitation of India also. The order of removal being penal in nature, visiting with civil consequences, ca?mot be passed without holding the enquin^ m accordance with the elaborate provisions as prescribed m Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. 14. . It is thus clear that the respondents have not foUowed the statutory provisions oflaw before passing the impugned order. 15, !n view of the foregomg, the petition deserves to be and is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.1.2004 (Aimexure P/12) is quashed. No costs. 16. On the question of back wages, no foundation has been laid to ostablish the fact that whefher the petitioner was gainftilly eniployed elsewhere or not dm-mg this period. Even otherwise keeping in vievv that fhe termination order has been vitiated not on merit b^it on account of non-compliance of the statutory provisions before temimatmg the services ofthe petitioner, 30% back wages would be sufficient m the interest ofjustice. However, this order shall not come in the way of the authorities to take appropriate action agamst the petitioner m accordance with law, ifso advised. 1. 2006(2) C.G.L.J. 1861 2. 2006L.T.(C.G.)412 3. 2005 L.T.(C.G.) 1513 Thaleui* Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge -! ^