:A-.'. ^ ^G; w ^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Wnt Petition (S) No. 2053 of2009 Petitioner Suiul Kumar Rajput, S/o Shri Keshar Singh, ^ed about 29 years, R/o YiUage Bamhani, P.0. Khadma, Tahsil Chhura, Distnct Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarii, fhxough the Secretaiy, Panchayat and Rural Developxnent, D,K«S, Bhawan, Maatralay, Raipur (Chhatdsgarh), The Director, Panchayat Service Dircctorate, Dau Kalyaa Sio.gh Bhawaa, Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Distdct Raipur (Chhatisgarh) The C.E.O. Jaapad Pao.chayat, Chhura, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. 3. 4. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Honl3le ShriSatish K. AgnihotriJ.) Shri Dhannesh Shnvastava, Advocate, for the petitioner, Ms Sunita Jain, Paojel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 3, O R D B R (Passed on fhis 20th day ofApril, 2009) The petitioner was appoiated by order dated 13.8.2008 (Annexure P/2) on tibie post of Shiksha Karmi Orade-HI, on probation for a period of two years, During titie probatioa period, fh.e petitioner was arrested in Crime No. 425/2008, for comimssionofthe offence punishable underSection 42^) ofthe Indiaa Penal Code (I.P.C.) and he was sent to jaU. Acccwlixi^y, the petitioner was placed under suspensioii by order dated 10.2.2009 (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, ia exercise of powers under Section 10 of fhe Chliattisgarh Paachayat SMksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Riiles, 1997, which was amended in "9 ^^. 2007 (for sfaort "fhe Rules, 2007"), ftie services of the petitioner was tenxunated by order dated 26.2,2009 (Aiiiiexiare P/1), passed by the Chief Executive Ofi&cer, Janpad Panchayat Chura ia piirsuaace ofthe decision taken m fhe meetmg ofthe General Adixunistirative Staadiag Comniittee of Jaopad Panchayat, Chiira, held on 21,2,2009, The petitioner impugns fhe termiaation oxder on fhe ground that diuiag the pendency ofa criminal case, fhe services ofthe petitioaer could not have been tenxdnated. Rule 10 ofthe Rules, 2007 reads as under:- "10, Termiaation - The Senrices of a Shifesha Karmi^ who not ia permaaeat service shaU be Uable to teniimation at aiiy time by one moaffas notice in wiitmg or on payment ofoiie monfhs pay and allowaaces given eifher by the Shiksha Karxoi to fhe appoiating authority or by fhe appoiatiag aufhority to fhe Shiksha Karmi.^ Thus, it is clear that Shiksha Karmi is not a pennaiient semce and the sanie shaUl be liable to tenniaation at aay time by one monfhs notice in writing or on payment of one monffas pay aad allowaaces, Rule 9 of fhe Rules, 2007 provides for impositioai of m^gor punishment by fhe General Admioistration Standmg Cominittee of fhe Zila Paachayat or Jaapad Panch^fat, as fhe case may be. In fhe present case, the General Adxiiiiaistratioa Standiag Comxmttee of Janpad Paachayat, Chiura, ia its ineetmg dated 21.2.2009, rcsolved to texmiaate the sendces of fhe petitloner under fh.e provisions of Rule 10 of ftie Rules, 2007^ on account of registoration offhe case under Section 420 of the I.P,C. aad confiinement of fhe petitioner in judicial •'^^i^..^-^' -?- custody. Thus, the impugaed order dated 26,2.2009 waa passed. The law is weU settied that a probationer has no right tD fhe post Even ofherwise, it has been xnade clear under fhe provisions of the Rules, 2007 fhat a Shiksha Kamii is not a holder of permanent post, If fhe petitioner has no Uea or right to fhe post, on rcgistration of a crmunal case agaiast him. aad his confineinent ui judicial custody, he caa be teimdnated wifhout any show cause notice or affonlmg aa opportmaily of heariag, The General Admioistorartion Stauding CommAtee has already decided, haviag regard to fhe facts of ffae case, to termtaate fhe service offfae petitioner, who was a probationer. In view of tihie foregoiBg, therc is no merit ia fhis petitibu, The petitiou deserves to be and is accQidingly diamissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thalcur