W 9 ® If IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR Writretition No. Q98 2004 / PETITIONER Rajkumar Gurjar S/o Shri Sooraj Prasad , Aged about —28 years, Ceca-Secretary Village Asandeeh, P.O.-Janakpur block vadra&agar. i7 Q VERSUS RESPONDENTS ------ 1) State of Chhattishgarh through secretary Panchayat and gramina Vikas vibhag D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (CG) Chief executive officer District Panchyat Vadr'amagar Surguja(C.G.) Village Pnachayat Asndeeh through Satpanch(Janpad Panchayat) Vadra&iagar surguja (C.G.) OW WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF CONCTITUTION OF INDIA (1) PARTICULARS ABOUT THE PETITIONER : ‘ The details of the Petitioner are shown in the cause title (2) PARTICULARS ABOUT THE RESPONDENTS : The details of the Respondent are shown in the cause title XI-HC-78 ' mawm Han snéemm'm 4~5v2005 Gn a memien being made, ihe cwe is iaken up for hearing. 5m'r. Hamida Siddique‘ ccunsei fer ihe pa‘fii’icner. Siam 5an§eeg Dubey 5hri Aiok Bakshi, co; Heard. Re'fu'r-n has already been filed an behaif- of respondem's. The case of The ye? 6A. far ‘rhe 5fa1e/responden‘r Nani. nsei far respondgm‘s Na.2 and 3. Téoner is Wm he was agapoinfad as Pancinaya? Km°m§ (#1: We. viiM'ge Panchaya? Asmdeeh on 841—95 and fherzaffar ”me peii‘iioner was apppin‘ied m: Panchayai' Secreiary being Piancimya‘i Karmi under $ecfian 69 af 141a Panchaya‘.’ Raj Adhiniyam vide order da'red 7'8— 99. In ihe year 2000} one Ahibamn was eiecieci as Sarpanch anti he was having some animosify againsf ‘H‘ie pefificrxer, +herefore, he cor‘ivened {5mm Sabina on 25-8-2000 fhe éram Sabha, fhe proposui for remavai of ihe pe'i'i‘iioner from fhe ms? cf Panchaya‘r Karmi was fumed down. HéWever‘, ‘me i pedT‘iomr a. was Transferred frém viiiage F i1 which said Abhibaran (mum n67 succeed In anchaya‘f Asmdeeh To Tomha. Agaii‘ 6mm Eabhé was canvened hy ‘i'he CoiiecTar cm 23-i-ZGG1 and wi‘i’htmf (my agenda fhe pe'l'i'tioner was againsT which ‘i'he pe‘H‘h‘a‘nz: was aHowed vide order dc fresh 6mm Sabina. Thé p ‘w; Heh was wokkii remcvgd and informa?ic"n wcw sem‘ by pcsf * preferred an appeai befaf'e ‘rhe $.D.O. which Ted 3Q~9-°OOE with a direcfion ‘w cowene wifioner‘ was again appam‘red an 4—iG-E{}Q2‘ g since 5:10:2Q0z as Panchaya‘riirjii. Xl-HC-78 m WIT-a; ....m.g.m2g..u&%x.t§l.§9f1wzoo 31mm (W) 311%“1251W Hafén'ésmmia; mamma vi_ mwml¥wm ‘ihereaffer, Ahibamn was oved from +he pas? of Sargmch. However, his wi‘fe nameiy Manma‘ri w s ei'ecfed as Sarpanc‘n and she cenvened a mae‘ring af Gram Sabha a? 31%mm 2—10r2003. W%‘?heuf any agenda/fha Qe'i'éfiener was removed by f e Gram Sabhu. Learned counsei for We pe‘fificner gubmiffed Tha‘.‘ fhe pefi‘rwner has been remaved wifhouf g ving any show cause nofice ara’ wif‘nou‘? giving any oppor'runify +0 ‘Hqe pefi inner, merely becausa Ahibamn was keepirig grudge agains'i‘ The ’pe‘i'i‘r er. She furTher submi’r‘fed ’r'nm We ge?i1=ioner"s services were g verned by fhe Panchaya‘r’Service (DiscipHi‘ie and r’égpeai) Rules, 1999 (h reinaffer referred To as ‘fhe mes, 1999). T1e disaiplinqry au'i'hori‘l'y as required fa failow ‘H‘ie Quie—7 of fhe said Ruies for imposing major p nalfy. 3m“; ThaT was m)? adapfed cmd fhe eervices of fhe pefi‘Ho er were fermina'fed in arbHrary and. discriménm‘ory manner wi‘i' UT foilowing Theyr‘ocedure mereiy on the easis of resolufion of fhe 3 am 5abha. ET is edmiTTed posi? rm Thu? the? The peTiTianer és a ?anchaya‘r KarmV§ and, therefore, his s vices are gaverned by The ruies} 199$. A Raie 5 0f “the said Rules prescri ed ‘r’ne penai‘ries and gub-‘ruie (b) Gf Ruheé $ub~ru§e (1) of Ede—7 kxys dawn fhqf ‘m; order; impasing on a mem er 6f fhe Panchayaf §ervicea any 0f ‘i'he penai‘l’ies specifieti iii cJaus (iv) 1'0 {via} of ru§e 5 ehaH be gassed excegn" after a fermal inquiry is hei as far as may be, in We manner hereinaff’er . prowded." Since The mqjrr peneify Vilas‘airqgésed on fhe pe‘fitimer} prescribed Major Penaifies r m h i n mat airW Hanmam marW (1m) " mmmmst 3 fherefore, +he procedure i ' foliawed by fhe respondem‘: 7: S, 9, 10 and 11 of fhe said Ruies, none éf fhese rules were fcliowed by ‘ ' ’fing fhe enquiry because H‘he disciplinary ; lni‘l’e charges an #he basés of *l’l'ie slalemenfs "gas were Flo? cammunicafed along wifh fhe 3 and 1'0 raqulr-e Hm +0 subméf his wri'l'i'en e was infarmed as W whefher he desires ‘m i mamamerww MIQwanésT 15 envisaged in Rule—’r’ oughf +9 have been :. If we leak mm 'Hqe sub-Mes 2, 3, 4, a, 61 garve ‘ W‘mw 'Wm.~m&;\z§mnu W200 fhe resnondenfs in conduc au‘rhorify did no? frame def 93‘ allega‘?iasas and such aha s+a+emen+s> of a“ead‘Hcns smi‘emenf of defence nor f be haard in yerson. We paTéTioner has Karmi mereiy on fhe basis € Even no enquiry was mném #he Rules. 1999‘ fherefor- adopTed in removing The pa canno‘f be sushined. in The res’ui‘t ?he ue‘i and We same is allowed an: and 6—10~2003 (Annzxur‘e-P Parfizs am en‘li‘l‘led 1' ’2) are quashed. aeen remove fmm The pas? Qf Panel-aye? é >f fhe resolufien passed‘ by fhe gleam Saeha. fed ugainsi The pei‘i'iianer‘ as per- Ruie—Y of ' e, irl View of fhe above, whale precedure riTioner is cammry‘ ‘io ’rhe Rules, 1999 which i'iion of ?he yefi?ioner deserves To be allowed E l +l1e orders dm‘ed 64309” {Amexure—P/i or cerlified copy of Thie erder‘ Sdl- L.c.BHAD00 Judge SP/FS/2005 - 20,00 i\w A d