•-'••/'•-'••---..-;• IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fSl No. ^ ^ SJ f 2007 PETITIONER t^ ^•^9^ ^1<' -»**''' ,..,^^?AI ^'.••' .y-/> • _,,^' Ilesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Balaram Sahu, Aged about 37 years, R/o Village & Post Gorakhpurkala Via Dashrangpur, Tehsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, C.G. '^•v'^ v't" VERSUS ^' RESPONDENTS 1. <•. 2. s. vy ; ^J i 3. s 4. 5. 5- State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G) The Collector, District Kabirdham, C.G. Deputy Director, Panchayat & Samaj Kalyan Vibhag, District Kabirdham, C.G. Janpad Panchayat Sahaspurlohara, through Chief Executive Officer , District Kabirdham, C.G. Gram Panchayat Gorakhpurkala Via Dashrangput, Tehsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, C.G. through Sarpanch WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUING APPROPRIATE WRITS. ORDERS OF DIRECTmNS, AF^ \ HIGH CQURTOTLCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition fSl No. 4681 of2007 Petitioner Ilesh Kumar Satiu Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND1A (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri AjayShrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Yashwaut Siagh Thakur, Depuly Advocate General for the respondents. t> O RD E R (Orall (Passed on this 4*h day of December, 2009) Heard. The present petition, filed under Article 226 of fhe Constitution of India iuipugns the order dated 11.7.2007 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat GoraMipurkala, Jaapad Paachayat - Safcin Lohara, District - Kabirdham. Brief facts, ia nutshell, are fhat the petitioner was appoiated as Panchayat Kanni on 12.11.2005 by fhe Gram Panchayat Gorakhpurkala. The petitioner contmued to work tUl 10.7.2003 when he was removed from the post of Paachayat Kanni aad Paachayat Secretary. In the ineaatime, a show cause notice was issued withdrawing the charge of Secretary from the petitioner. Beiag aggneved fhe petitioner filed W.P.No. 1021/2003, which was disposed of by order dated 9.5.2003 wifh a direction to decide the case of the petitioner within a monfh.. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinoved froin the post of Pauchayat Karmi aad Secretary. 3. Being aggrieved the petitioner again filed W.P.No. 2973 of 2003, which was aUowed by order dated 28.8.2006 on fhe ground that the order of removal was passed, ignoring the statutoiy provisions of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Riiles, 1999 (for short fhe Rules, 1999'). However, Uberty was granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with law. 4. Thereafter, by order dated 21.2.2007 (Aimexure R/l) a coininittee was constituted to enquire into the allegations leveUed against fhe petitioner. After a detaUed preUmiaaiy enquiiy, the enquiry report (Annexure R/4) was subnutted, accordingly, thereai'ter a chai^e sheet dated 24.5.2007 (Aruiexure P/5) was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social WeUare, Kabirdham. In response to fhe charge sheet, the petitioner subinitted an appUcation (Annexure P/6) for supply of docunients, which was repUed by the respondent No.3 on 27.6.2007 (Annexure P/7) stating that fhe reqiiired docuiuents could be obtained from Sarpanch, Graru Pauchayat, Gorakhpurkala, fhough fhe char^e-sheet was issued by fhe respondent No.3. By the impugned order dated 11.7.2007 (Airaexure P/1) the petitioner has been reinoved iroin the post of Panchayat Karmi, wifhout holdiag proper enquiiy. 5. Leamed couiisel would subinit that siuce the maudatoiy, statutoiy provisions of Rule 7 of fhe Rules, 1999 were not foUowed before reinoviag fhe petitioner froni the post of Pauchayat Karmi, the iinpugned order, passed in the ineeting of the Graia Sabha was iUegal aud bad on the grouad fhat no n proper enquiry was held. In support of hte subinissions leamed counsel appeariag for fhe petitioner relied oa a decision of fhis Court m Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. State of C.G. & others1, which was referred approvingly m Aajordas Vs. State of CUiattis®arh & others2 . 6. Learued counsel appearfng for the respondents submits that the notice along wifh fhe charge sheet (ArmexuTe P/5) was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner declined to receive fhe notice aad charge sheet. Thereafter, no enquuy officer was appoiuted aad no enquiiy was conducted. 7. I have heard leamed couasel appearing for the parties aad perused the docuraents appended thereto. 8. Even ia the case, the deUnquent einployee decUnes to accept the chai^e sheet, the enquiry niust be conducted in accordance with law, niay be ex-parte. It is trite law that the enqiiiry oificer does not examine witnesses oiily but other docuxaents also which may be relevaut to establish the charges. In the present case nothing has been doue after issue of the char^e sheet to prove fhe charge and as such it inay not be held that fhe enquiiy as conteinplated ia Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999 has been done. 9. Rule 7 of fhe Rules, 1999 provides for procedure before temunating services of a meinber of Panchayat. In the iastant case, it is apparent that although a prelmunary enquiry was held and on the basis of the out come of the preUmuiary enquiry fhe cbarge sheet was issued to fhe petitioner but thereafter no enquiry was held. Thus, admittedly, the said provisions of Rule 7 ' (2006(2) C.G.L.J. 186} 2 {2008 (III) MPJR-CG 110} /'<3r~'"s'isss-, ^s^ '"' K r l %.. '^^%^ isi! ;! ofthe Rules, 1999 were not foUowed. It is apparent fhat after fhe prelimmaiy enquiry, the orier of reinoval was passed in fhe ineetmg of the Gram Sabha. The same coiild not have been passed wifhout foUowiiig the provisions oflaw, prescribed in Rule 7 ofthe Rules 1999. 10. Having heard leamed counsel appearuig for the pardes and haviag perused fhe pleadiugs and document appended fhereto, it is evident fhat fhe unpugned termination order was passed without foUowing the proper procedure of law, as prescnbed uader Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. The procedure for holdiag aa enquiry is prescnbed under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 for imposition of major penally. Hence, the termiaation is bad aad vitiated 011 the ground of non-coinpliaace of the statutory provisions and denial of fhe prmciples of natural justice. It amounts to infi'action of not only the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rzdes, 1999 but also fhe provisions of Article 311(2) of fhe Constitution of India. The order was iu fact penal in nature, having civU consequences and as such conipliauce of the elaborate provisions, as eQshrmed in Rule 7 of fhe Rules 1999 was inandatoiy ia the present case. (See fhe case of Dhaluram. Kosarla and Aajordas (supra)}. 11. In view of the foregoiag, fhe petition is attowed. The unpugned order dated 11.7.2007 is set aside. No order asto costs. 12. On the question of back wages, no foundation has been laid to estabUsb the fact fhat whether fhe petitioner was gamfaUy em-ployed elsewhere or not duiing tbis period. Even otherwise, ..?'• %. .. J S ^ ^ss^,/ keepiag iit view fhat the temiiaation oider has been vitiated not on nierit but on account of nou-coiupliaace of the statutoiy provisions before tenninatuig the semces of the petitioner, 30% back wages woiild be sufficient ia the interest ofjustice. ThakuT Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge