'&.~ HIGH COURT UFCHHATnSGAKH.^LffltLASE PETITIONHt RESPONDENTS WRIT PBlTnON No. 28a3.eOiUO(> Ramaandan Ram, son of Raghavram, resideat of villags Panchayat Htei, Block Maaora, Dist. Jashpumagar (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarii, Itu-ou^i: Secretay, Panchayat Department, DX.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ChiefExecutive Qflficer, Janpad Panchayat, Manora, Dist. Jashpumagiu- (CG). 3. Sarpaneh, Gram Panehayat, Hirri, Jaspad Block, Manota, Dist. Jashpumagar (CO). WRIT PETmON UNDER ARIICLE 226/227 OF THE coNSTmjnoN OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Atmihotri. J. Present: Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, Advocate tbr the petitimier. Shri Y.S. Thakur. Dy. Adv. General with Mg Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyw for the State. ORAL OBDER (Passed on W1i day of April, 1. The petitioner was appomSsd as Panchayat Kanni on 29.10.95 (Antiexure P/l). Subsequentty, by order dated 10.4.2005 (Annexure E/5), services of the petitioner as Panchayat Kanni was temunated. The petitioner has impi^ned the said order in this writ petition on the ground ttiat Ae iaqiugned order tenninating the services of fhe petitioner fimm the post ofPaichayat Kanni was passed without following the provisions enshrined in Ruto 7 ofC.G. Pancfaayat Semce (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (far short "(he Rules"). 2. Leamed counsel appcaring fbr fhe petitioiier nibmits that Rule 7 provideg for detafled procediire for imposing major penalties Le. remowil fiom serwce. According to the leamed counael for fhe petitioner, removal fiom service comes within the pwview ofmajor penalty. 3. Be Ihat as it may, the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi.It is not flie ease ofthe respondeats that any show eause notice was issued to Ihe pctitiona or any proeedure as ptescribed m Rute 7 of die Rules was foliowed befiwe the impugned order was passed. A Division Bench of this Cowt in its wder dated 25.07.2006 passed in W.P. No. 1656 of 2004 and dus Court in its wder dated 15.11.2006 passed in W.P. No. 1850 of2001, have held that Rule 7 tfflie Ruleg have to be foUowed in the case oftemunatian of a Panchayat employee. 4. ThiiS Court m Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. State of C.G. & Ottwrs, Beegan Ram Vs. State of C.G. & Others2 and Prakash Ch»dSoni Vs. State of C.G. & Othera*, CKF^-isu'uutLnwi^^i^HMN Gowri ^ \ 'A. ' held that flie non-comp&mce dt fhe statutwy provisiot^Ad (ienial of prmeiples ofnaturaljnstice tantamount to mfraction ofnot <ady Ae provistens of.Rsule 7 rf tfae Rules of 1999, but, the provisions ofArtiole 311 (2) ofthe Constitution of India also. The order <rf removal beiag penal in nature, vistdng Ihe civil conseqnences, cannot bepassed wifliout holding flie enquiiy in accordance wife Ae elaborate provisions as prescribed in Rule 7 oftfae Bales. 5. It is Ihus clear fhat ifae respondents have not foMowed fte statutoiy paovisions of law before imposing the major penalty of removal of flie petitioner finm the post ofPanchayat Kanni. 6. For the reasons and tfae discussion inade hereaiabove, an4 (he dicta laid down by Ihe Court in various cases (supra), flie order dated 10.4.2005 (Annexure P/S) w bad and is quashed. 7. On Ifae question ofback wages, no foundation has been laid to establish flie fect ihat whe&ier the petitioner was gaintuUy employed elsewhere or not during this period. Even otherwige, keeping in view the fact that tfae tennin^ion order has been vitiated not on merit, but, on account tf non-complianee oftfie stsehttory provisions before temrinatuig flie services of the petitioner, 30% back wagss woul4 be sufiicient in ttie interest ofjustice. It is, however, madt clearthat flus order ahall not come in the way of the respondents Irom iiutiating the proceedings agamst the petitioner, tflfaey are so advised, stricfly inaccordance wifh law and in tenns offhe procedure prescritoed in Rule 7 ofthe Rldes. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to tfaeextent nalicated above. No costs. Sd/- SatishK-Agnihotri Judge 1. 2006(2)ceu 186 2.2006LTCG41 3.2005LT(CO)151