7, $§n§g§e aamfa 1N THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W WP. (c) No. CIS‘Pr /2011 / PETITIONER : Gulab Ram, S/o Late Mehilal, aged about 45 years, Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bundeli, R/o Village Paradol, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department ofPanchayat and Social Welfare, DKS. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. /The Collector, ‘ District Korea (C‘G.) 3 (Zila Panchayat, Korea Through the ChiefExecutive Officer Zila Panchayat, Korea (C.G.) / 4. Janpad Panchayat Manendagarh, Through the ChiefExecutive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) /, Sub Divisional Oflicer (Revenue), Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) 6f/ Gram Panchayat Paradol, Through its Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Paradol, ’ Distt. Korea (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT «ii/ 0 3a WW, @ahng,W m.‘¢?.($z...b&g.~m7uf/ 7/” 1mm amiss IFL zoo mam m WWW) r wwww 'qméff 1§ Fgtz? rm a? afar! 311%?! S J. WWW mmm mmnfga 31m B : Hon’ble Shri Manindra ohan Shrivastava 12. 12.2011 Shri Ravindra Agrawal, ounsel for the petitioner. Shri N. Naha Roy, Panel yer for the State, on advance copy. Heard on admission. This petition has been f ed by the petitioner for quashing order dated 3. 10201 1 (passed by Sub Divisional OEice’r (R) to the extent of the case of the petiti ner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a matter of inquily under Section 40 the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj A Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short t of 1993’), While recording finding * against the Sarpanch, it has n proposed to take steps for removal ‘ of the petitioner also. He su‘t mits that this direction is illegal and without jurisdiction and the petitioner could be removed from service on any allegation of misconduct only in accordance With the procedure prescribed under the Panchayat Services (Discipline 8c. Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short *the Rules of 1999”) y The order dated 3. 10.20 .1 passed by the Sub Divisional Ohicer shows that in proceedings: under Section 4O of the Act of 1993, Sarpanch has been removed from the office. Finding that the petitioner is also involved, it has been proposed to take action H. against the petitioner. By the order, petitioner has not been removed y f from service. It appears that diuring inquiry against the Sarpanch for 4> w e f “ c e XI—HC 78 3a WW, @mn‘é 1W c against the petitioner. It is n t a case where the petitioner has been removed without following th procedure prescribed in the Rules of Court to entertain an apprehension titioner would be emoved from servme w1thout followmg he procedure prescribed und r the Rules of 1999 The Rules of 1999 clearly prescribes that before imposmg any penalty, the authority is required“~toxhold inquiry in t e matter. Moreover, the petitioner has also preferred an appeal aga' st the order dated 3. 10.2011, which is pending consideration before A grievance has been r 'sed by the'~petitioner that though in the appeal, an application for tay has been moved, without deciding that application, steps are being taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petiti ner. If the petitioner has oved an application for stay, the Appellate Authority should d cide the same‘one way or the other , Within a short time. The Appe te Authority shall take a decision on V_ petitioner’s stay application ithin a period of one month from the date next fixed for hearing of e appeal or from the date of receipt of . copy of this order whichever i later of. With the aforesaid obserlvations the petition 1s finally disposed Sd/- 1%9‘99 There is no reason for Manindra Mohan Shrivastava . Judge 's ”e _, t “WWm TH 200 m anW am mm m m mafiaw) mm Hfsa mam r? m1? HWH v§ m2“: Tm a; aif‘atl 3m removal, the authority found t action is also required to be taken