SPQNDENTS ^^ ^•"^I^" Bilfittlft-:fiS^ lilTHEHIGH COURT OF JU^&ATURE AT BILASPUR,C.C. WRIT PETITION NO^ 2.8 7^ /2002 (Petition under afticle 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia) Guidhram Sahu, aged about 26 years, S/o Sanath Kumar Sahu, Panchay^: Kaam (Secretary) gram Panchayat Bhaisa, Block Development Benietara, R/o ViUag'e Bhaisa, Tahsil Bemetra, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1) The Additional CoUector r Cma Re'visional Aufhority, Bemefaa, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2) Sub Divisional Office, (Revenue) Cmn Appellate • ABtfaority, BemetsiiaDistt. Durg(C.G.) 3) TheauefExecutfveOfflcei,Cum Competent Aufhority J|anpad Panchayat Bemetara, Distt. ] Duigi 4) Gram Panchayat Bhadsa, fhrou^i its Sarpach- BloGfc Development Bemetara, Distt. Dmg (C.G.) E||||iSBII.BBTiIK] ^ iER.A^©l^^:2a^^QF,1^ lli;iBi l8^:'Ws;iss®EBNesais^N'R@jKRiA']'E;w%ir, i ^N@®iiI)ERS.,;.'':.: -:- I!. i l.!l fl.:. HT6H CQURT OF CHMATFISeARH AT BILASPUR WritPetjtion No, 1874 of 2002 Petitioner ©iridhr'EUtiSahu Versus Respondents The AdditionaK'ollector & others Singte Bench: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shr'i'Vishnu Koshta, oouniselforthePetitioner. Shri Sushil bubey, Sovemment Adyocate for •rtie respondentsNo. lond 2/Stoite. J Shri Sanjcy 5- Agrawal, counsel for the nuyondent No. 4. QR&ER yassed on 1st September, 2006) | 1. The petitioner was cppointed as Randiayat Kanni/Secrelwy] in the 6ram Panchayort, Bhaisa, Block Benietara, bistrict Durg. 2. The 6rom Panchayut in its ineeting dated 11.10.2000 (Annexurs P/l) resoh/ed t»remove the petitioner from tha •t post of Ptojnchayat Karmi/Secretary oh the atteyrtwn that <Ki 1 Panchayat Karmi/Secretnry the petitioner allotted •the la»id on lease in the name of tiis Wifeand other family memt>ie;rs, his appointment wos also not as per the provisions ofj 3. Tte 6rom |5abha by its resohjtionlclated 1&. ^e realutJon j)as^d l^ thieii^ni PancKp^ 1:1111 7. ^ petitioner was removed from "rtie post of Paichayat Karmi/5ecre*ary. 4. The Chief Executive Officar/respondent No. 3 approved the proceedings of the 6ram Panchoyat and that of •tfte 6ram Sabha cind passed the order of temoval of the petitioner froro serviceon25.10.2000 (Annexure P/3). 5. The petitioner fifed an cypeal before the Additional Collector, Bemetara. The Additional Collector by order dated 23.11.2000 (Annexure P/6) stayed the <^eration of •1+ie impugned order dated 25.10.2000 (Annexure P/3) passed by the respondent No. 3. 6. T1ie6ramPanchayat/respondentNo.4preferredarevision before the Commissioner, Raipur. The Commissioner, after hearing both the part-ies, by order dated 21.2.2002 (AnnexureP/8) dismissed the revision as not monn'hiinable ogainst the order dated 23A1.2000 (Anne?<ure P/6) passed by the Additional Collector/respondent No. l stoiying •the operation of the impugned order dorted 25.10.2000'pa^sed s by the Chief Executive Officer/reqiondent No. 3. i^lTe re^ondent No. 1 ultimatety dismissed the cqipedl fi the petitjoner on 8.8.2000 (Anne?0jre P/9). The petitioner has filed this petition mnpugriingi thie ^o^ dal^dj 283L2CKX)i (^nnexure P/4) pas^ By t^] ^ <•. t>ivisional Officer.Bemelxtraholding -that the appeal is maintainabte before the Collector ond further, the order doted 8.8.2002 (AnnexureP/9) passed by the respondent No. 1 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order of removal passed by the Gram Ponchoyat approved by the Gvo.m Sabha and further, approved by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bemetoirti/req}ondent No. 3. 8. The petitioner. has filed this petition challenging the impugned orders on •Hie ground that -the petitioner wasnot afforded on opportunity df hearing osenvisaged in Rule 7of the Mddhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline ond Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short 'The Rutes, 1999'). It]is further submitted that before imposing major penalties |aS specified in ckiuse (iv) to (via) of rule 5, the procedure ih Rule 7of the Rules, 1999, has not been followed. Hence, the f'i removal order ss badias mojorpenalty in terms of Rule 5l(b) (vi) of the Rules, (annot'be imposed without conductin^ a !:: regular departmental enquiry as' prescribed under Rute 7 jof - the Rufes, 1999. 9. Accordingly, theresolytion ddted 11.10.2000 (Anhexurie R^l) passed by'the Sram Ranchayat, and order dated|8.^.i (Annexure i P/9) paSsed by the | Additional j Cdlle^l^r', m Bablu Bemetara are quashed and the petitioner is entitled to all the benefi+s, pecunnry ond otherwi^. It is made clear that this order will not come in the woy of the Respondent/Sram Paichoyat or any other respondent, as the case may be, from initiating the d'sciplinary act'on agdrinst the petitioner for the alleged misconduct committed by him, if so advised, in occordance with taw and in terms of the procedure ppescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. Sd/- Satish K.Aghihotri Judge