^^^t~^-r~T T ^ ^ / v^r L. BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR C.G. Inthe Matter of W.P.No. f 3^/2003 / PETITIONER ,/ ^$€.-/ .':>^ ^®\S^C.< ..^•y\v>> 9.,>T/'; ^'\^" y RESPONDENTS ^ Anjani Kumar Tripathi, son of about 32 years, residentof village orchha Shri Atmaram Tripathi, aged, Tah. Narayan pur, Distt. Bastar. Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through : Secretary, Department of Panchayat Rural Avam Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2) District Collector, Bastar, Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh). 3) Sub Divisional Officer, Tah. Narayanpur Distt. Bastar. 4) Block Development Officer, Block-Orchha,Narayanpur, Distt. Bastar (CG). 5) Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Padmkot, Orchha, Distt. Bastar ^"•^'"^^" n;^ ^' PETITION UNDER A^TICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI OUO WARRANTO. 4P^ y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. l310_ot2QQ3 Petitioner Anjaui Kumar Tripathi Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice SatSsh K. A©iihotrl,J Shxi Bhaskai' Pyasi , Advocate tor thc pctitioiicr. Smt. Aiiju Ahuja, Deputy Govemmeat Advocate for fhe respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri Arun Sao, Advocate for the respondent No.5. ORDER (PassRd hy this 8th riay ofFebniaiy, 2007) The following order offhe Court is passed by Satish K. Agnitiotrl, J. The present petition filed uader Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India impugns fhe order dated 17,6,1999 (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondent No.5 as bemg uncoastitiitional on the ground tfaat fhe petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearmg and the order was passed m contravention of fhe provisions of Riile 7 of fhe Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Disciplme aad Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short 'fhe Rules, 19991). It was fiirther prayed that the rcspondents be directed to allow the petitioner to perform his duties as Panchayat Karmi-Secretaiy of the Gram Panchayat, Padmkot, Orcha, District- Baster. The nndisputed facts, m nutehen, are fhat the petitioner was appomted as Paachayat Karsni on temporary basis on fixed pay of Rs. 500/- p.m. by order dated 2.4.1996 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner was fhereafter sent for trainmg for Paachayat Karmi/ Panchayat Secretaiy aad he was reUeved from the traiamg vide order dated 28.2.1997 (Annexure P/4). ——— — It is meiitioned in ffae impugned order Annexure P/1 that m fhe general body metiiig dated 17.6. 1999 fhe Gram Sabha of the vfflage Paiichayat resolved to remove fhe petltloner from fhe post of Panchayat Kamii as he is mi outsider i,e. not resident of fhe saiae vfflage Panchayat aiid tlie petitioner was duiected to hand over llie complete charge offhe postw.e.f, 21.6.1999. Pursuaat to fhe said Gram Sabha resolution fhe services of tlie petitioner as Panchayat Karmi was terminated w.e.f 21.6,1999 (Aanexure P/1). Leanied counsel appearing for the petitioner submits tliat Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 provides for procedure before termmatiug sprvice of a member of Panchayat. !u fhe mstant case, the said provisions were not foUowed, 110 defmite charges were fiamed aiid ftie petitioner was not senred with fhe articles of charges before holding aa enqiiiry leading to termmation offhe petitioner from his services. Leamed counsel fdrther submits fhat fhough it was an appoiatoaient on temporaiy basis but the terDiination order was passed on the basis of the aQegation that fhe petitioner is aa outsider i.e. not resident of the vicinity of fhe concemed village Panchayat, He fiirfher submits that the order is stigmatic aad removal from service comes wiffain fhe punriew of major penalty, flie same could iiot have been passed williout foUowmg fhe provisions of law, prescribed m Riile 7 of tiie Rules 1999. Adniittedly, fhe Gram Panchayat, beforc passmg fhe impugned tennmation order has not complied wifti the provisions of Rule 7 of fhe Rules, 1999. This Com-t ia Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. State of C.G. 8s others1, Be^an Ram Vs. State of C.G. & others2 aad Prakash Chaad Soni Vs. State of C.G. & othrs3 has held fhat fhe non compliaiice of the statutory provisious aad deuial of principles of 8. 9. iiataral justice tantamounte to mfraction of not only the provisions of Rute 7 ofthe Rules, 1999 but the provisions ofArticle 311 (2) offhe Constitation of India also. The oider of removal bemg penal m nature, visituig with civU consequeaces, cannot be passed without holdiag the enquiry m accoidance wifb the elaborate provisions as prcscribed ia. Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999. It is fhus clear that fhe respondeiits have not foUowed fhe statutory provisions oflaw before passing tfae iaipugned order. In view offhe foregomg, fhe petition desewes to be and is allowed. The iiapugiied oider Annexiire P/1 is qiiashed, No costs. On the question of back wages, no foundation has been laid to establish the fact fhat whefher fhe petitioiier was gamfiiUy employed elsewhere or not durmg tliis period. Even ofherwise keeping m view that the termmatiou order has beeii vitiated iiot on merit but 011 account of non-compliancfe of the statiitory provisions beforc teroiinathig fhe services of fhe petitioner, 50% back wages would be sufficieut ia the in^terest ofjiistice. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1. 2006 (2) C.G.L.J. 186! 2. 2006 L.T. (C.G.). 412 3. 2005 L.T. (C.G.) 1513 Thakur