1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT ‘ BILASPUR w. P. No. 3557 / 2004 Petitioner Z Goverdhan Ram Kuldip S/ o Late Shri Jaipal Ram Kuldip, Aged about 32 years, R/o Village Mender, Post Bhilwem; Tahsil : Kunkuri, Dist Jashpur-(C.G.) The Secretaly Panchayat Department of Gram Swaraj, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Dist : Raipur—(C.G.) The Collector, Panchayat Branch, Jashpur—(C.G.) The Chief Executive Officer, Jiia Panchayat Jashpur, The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Farsabahar, Tahsil Kunkuri, Dist : Ja‘shpur—(C.G.) The Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Kunkuri, Dist 2 Jashpur—(C.G.) Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhelwan, Janpad Panchavat Farsabahar, Tahsii Kunkuri, Diét z Jashpur—(C.G.) Joseph Toppo [Gram Sahayak) Gram Panchayat Ganjhadih, Tahsil Kunkuri, Dist : Jashpur—(C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF THE WRITS. DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION. CERTERIORAI 81‘ OR ORDER(S} AND / OR DIREC’I‘IONISI IN THE NATURE OF WRITS. m , Respondents :1. State of Chhattisgarh Through 1. Particulars of the Petitioner : As per cause title. XI—HC-22 . .;..NA.‘. XI-HC»22 " favour of The péfifioner. He passed wifhou‘r conducfing an Qefurn has been fiied’ ‘ for. The resnondem‘ submi a ~.. appoinfed' as Panchava‘f Learned counsei for- submi‘rs ‘fhm' 1‘her2 is non-c Fanchaya'r Service {Disciniih ' appiiqa'bie in viewof ’rhe iud case of?mkash Chandra Paf: {‘WRNO594/Z’003). IT is 31 aiso.submi'rs fhaf Thé 053a“ has been y enqulry. v lionqwifhdacumenfs. Learned counsei rs ‘I‘ha‘r fhe Defifioner was never ‘ ecrefary and fhe ‘pefifio’ner “was appoin‘l'ed as a Panch‘ava‘r Karmi in dceo‘r-d'ance wi‘i’h Panchava’r‘ Karmi Yejna 19%. Copy of ' r He ’fur*her submifs ”rha‘f ena .Lnsoecfor and submi'r‘red The .He aiso’ suBmiw ‘rhaf There: was nassed bv' fhe (5mm R abproved bv‘The (5mm $abh com‘enfion of fhe respondem \ oppor‘runiiy. fhe Deh‘lfioner on. fhe ’ofher' hand mmiianc'e of provisibns of Ruie 7 of a and Appeai) Ruies 1999 which are ‘gmen’r of fhis Cour’r rendered in The zl' V3. Sfafe of (haaffisgarh d? Gfhers a‘red ‘i’ha‘i‘ according 1‘0 ffhe ‘Rulesno ‘Char'QeS were framed. n0!“ Thé s rhe scheme is ‘Fiied as AnneXure~R/1. uiry was conducfed by fhe Panchaycrr repom‘ on 6-3-2064 (Annexure—R/23. , xoiufion for- r'emovai of fhe peTifioner mchavaf, §heiwa anci The same was 1 on 16-4—2004 (Annexure-P/3). The s is Tha‘i‘ The ne‘i‘ifioner‘was qive‘n due charge sh’ee? and The sfafemen‘rs of [@éfea nrascribed in sub mies‘ (6)! (7) . (8), (g) & (10) was foiiowed. He aiie‘qafions were served on fhe pe‘ri‘rioner' nor fhe ofher procedure " oiso submi‘i’s Thu? The proper opporfuni‘i‘y was nof given To The pefi‘Honer To cross—examine The} wimesses. 1n Dara i4 of ’rhe iudgme‘m rehdareci in *r'he case of Pmkash ikandka Pafel' (word), fhis Cou ‘r‘r has heid’ 1'haf enquiry 'hds ‘ro be cond‘uc‘l’ed in dccordance wif'h Rule 7 of The Ruies 19?? ‘ Learned counsei for fhe J‘S‘fom i£ nof in a posi'i‘ion To dispu‘ta Th3 nfor’esaid faé+s. cTs andsircumsfcmcés of “the case Havinq considered #he f and maferiai on record, The order do’red 1§—6—2004 / (Annexure—P/i) and The order d 'red 4-6-2004 (Anneuxre-P/3) are iiohie To be and are sef aside. However, 'fhe respondents are of ‘ m accorchnce Wifh iaw. aserva'rions. 1*his pefi‘rion smnds disposed of. ii'berw To nr'ocead in The ma‘h‘ei Wifh fhe aforesaid of I~ ..... t UCWr' J‘ T. 1 . Sdl~ Fakhruddin {9% Judge {11%}w