"•«1 ^ / HiGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT B!LAS°UR Writ Petition fS) No. 6430 of 2005 Petitioner Ramssh Chandra Yadav, son of Mahadev Yadav, aged about 32 years, resident of villags Panchayat Nande!!, Block: Pamgarh: dist: Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Versus Respondents 1. StaSs of Chhattisgarti: through: Sscretar/, Panchayat & Weifare Department, D.K. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.5. Director, Panchayat, Directorate, Panchayat & Socia! Welfare Department, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G) Collector, dist. Janjgir-Champa (CG) Chtef Exscutive Officer, Janpat Panchayat, Block: Pamgarh, Dist: Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Sarpanch, vsilage Panchayat NandeSi, Janpat Panchayat Pamgarh, dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G) WRIT PETiTON UNDER ART!CLE 226^ 227 OF THE CONSTiTUTION OF iNDSA 2. 3. 5. SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J Smt. Anju Ahuja, Advocate fer the petitioner. Shri A. S. Kachwaha, Depuiy Advocate Generai for the respondents No.1 to 3. None for the respondents No. 4 and 5. 1. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 27TH day of February, 2008) The present peStion, fited.under Article 226/227 of ttie Constitution of india, impugns the order dstsd 25.2.2005 (Annexure P/4) and the order dated 7.12.20(c (Annexure P/8), on the ground that the impugned order, teFminating the sennces of ttse petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi, was passed v/ithout foilowing the prowsions enshrined in Rule 7 of ttie c^hhaffisgarh Panchayat Sen/ice (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1998 (for short"theRuies,1999"}. i' 'E 9 9"»-G^ S "sf£!S3S, I, •w --!j l "s..^•'y' •'.^^,6y "••raS;S-.4wSs>*t 3. 5. The indisputabte facts, in nutsheii, are that ttss petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi (Secretar/) by order dated 14.11.1995 (Annexure P/1). Thereafter, the petitioner was deciared as Panchayat Secretar/ by order dated 2.7.1999 (Annexure P/2). The Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare vide Setter dated 23.2.2005 directsd the Sarpanch to initiate proceeding for remova! of the petiSioner from ttie post of Panchayat Kamii, as compiaint regarding finandal irreguiarities and forged paymsnts have been found proved in the enquiry. By the order dated 25.2.2005 (Annexurs P/4) passed by the Deputy Director, Panchayat & Socia! Welfare, the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi (Secretar/) was canceiied. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.2.2005 (Annexure P/4), the petitioner filed a revision before ttie Collector, 'flA'iteh was allowed vide order dsted 9.6.2035 passed in Reviston Case No. 44/A-69(15)/04-05. In view of the order dated 9.6.2005 passed by the AddiSonaI Coiiector, the petitioner was declared as Secretary by order dated 25.6.2005 (Annexure P>'6) passed by the Deputy Director. Besng asgrieved by the order dated 9.6.2005, passed by the Additiona! Coiiector, the Sarpanch of the village panchayat, Nandeti preferrsd an appeal before the Director, Panchayat, which was altowed by order dated 7.12.2005 (Annexure P/8) passsd in Appeal Case No. 114/A-89(15)/04^)5. Thus, the petitionsr has ^led this petition chaitenging the order dated 25.2.2005 (Annexure P/4) and the order dated 7.12.2005 (Annexure P/8). Learnsd counss! appearing for the petitioner would submit that atthough in the impugned order datsd 25.2.2005 (Annexure P/4) it is mentioned that She enquiry was conducted and show cause notice Vi/as issued to the petitioner, but that does not fulfill ths requirement of the procedure as prescribed in Rute 7 of the Rules, 1999, which provides for substantive procsdure before term'inating ser/ice of a member of the Panchayat. In the instsnt case, the said provisions wers not fo!!owed, no dsfinite charges were framed and the es. %,^ "VSif' A' \- ^r/'-" ''"''•iS3S»-S3i:'"' 8. petitioner was not served with the articies of charges before holding an enquir/ teading to termination ofthe petitionerfrom his services. Lsarned counsel would further submit that the termination order was passed on the basis of the aiiegation that the petitioner had committed financial irregularities and forged paymente were made. Thus, the order is stigmatic and rsmoval from service comes within the purview of major penalty, the same could not have been passed without foiiowing the procedure as laid down in the provjsions of law, as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules 1999. Leamed counse! appearing for the petitioner cited a decision of this Court in Sobhnathram IVIehto Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others (order dated 22.1.2008 in W.P.No. 2834 of 2006). Shri U. N. S. Deo, leamed counsel appearing for ttie rsspondents No. 1 to 3 wouid categoricaliy submit that on perusa! of the papers it is evident {hat the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Ruies, 19%, have not been followed. The petitioner was appointed on 14.11.1995 and without foliowing $he due process of law, the petitioner has been removed on 25.2.2005, whidi is not sustainable in iaw. Admittedly, befors passing the impugned termination order the concemed authority has not complied with the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. This Court in Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. Sfate of C.G. & others , Beegan Ram Vs. State of C.G. & others2 and Prakash Chand Soni Vs. State of C.G. & othrs'3 has heid that ihe non compliance of the statutory provisions and deniai of principles of natura! justice Santamounts to infraction of not only the prowsions of Rute 7 of the Rules, 1999 but the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of india aiso. The order of removal being pena! in nature, visiting wth civ;! (evi!) consequencss, cannot he passed v/ithout holding the enquir/ in accordance with &ie eiaborate provisions, as prescribed in Rule 7 oftheRutes.1999. 0. 5, t> ~~<%t. ^s^t. SSNls s^-^y "s"-.^ 4 ||.gg>!;'s|i! 9. 10. 11 It is thus ctear that the respondente have not fot!<ywed the statutor/ provisions oflaw before passing the impugned order. On Uie question of back Visges, no foundation has been !aid to establish the fact that v/hether the peStioner was sainfally empioyed eisewhere or not during this period. Even otherwise, keeping in view that the termination order has been vitiated not on merit but on account ®fnon-compliance of the statutory provisions before terminating the serv'ices of the petitioner, 30% back wages woutd be sufRcient in the interest ofjustice. In view of the foregoing, tfte petition is atlowed. The impugned order dated 25.2.2005 (Annexure P/4) and the order dated 7.12.2005 (Annexure P/8) are » 3, quashed. No costs. Thakur 1. 2. 3. 2006 (2) C.G.L.J. 1861 2006 L.t. (C.G.). 412 2005 LT. (C.G.)1513 ^i^&^