^' c •\« IN THE HIGH COORT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.^75g_/2002 PETITIONER Ramnarayan s/o Sunderlal, aged 30 years, r/o village- ;Negurdth, tehsil-Nawagarh, dj.strl.ct-Janjg3.r_Champa (CG) vs. RESPONDENTS ^ip<.^/ ^^s^ .^°A.-1 1. Ttie ColleGtor, Janjglr ChcBHpa. 2. Sub Dlvisional Offlcer, Janjgir. 3. Gram Panehayat, Negurdih.through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat.Negurdih, district-iTanjgir Champa. 4. Chief Executive offlcer, Janpad Panchayat, district-Jan^Jgir Champa, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22&/227 OF THE CONSTITCTTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 w < • 3^'qraRra', SrftaTR, Rlriuy \vi '4ach NIKdlshtlltb """•••"••"'•"•'T'g^ 200 SII^T^iT f^'-fitfisn^T g^iNiofeT 3)1^1 ^k11W?ri?cT J fiilci'ifl-i HiitiTffte'^l'tRiwk ^isri^ITSTI^T 2-S.20QS Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, cjounSel for the petitioner. -Shri. Sanjay Shyam. Agarw^l, Qoift, Adv. for rcspondent No. 1 & 2. Shri Saadeep Dubey, coutiselfor respondent No.3. Heard leamed coitasel fc|r the parties for fiaial disposal of the matter. Retura on behalf of respc|ndent No.3 has ah-eady been filed, but no rctm-n has bccn filcdon tich^IfofrcspondcntNo, 1 & 2. The case of tfae petitionq Jaiijgu--Chain.pa. On 7.4.200G| Sabha to lesiove the petitione^ - is that he was workmg as Paachavat Karmi (Secretary) of Gram. Pai|ichayat,Negut'dih,Nawagar}i, District a resolutmn was passed by fhe Grani froin. fhe said post, against ffae said i^solution thc pentioncr prefen^d aii appeal bcforc ftic Sub Ditvisioaal Officer, Janjgtr, but the sarjie was rejected by ttie S.D.Q and illtimately, the petitioner has b|een removed from tiie seni'ices withont §iving any show cause notice 4fnieetiug of Graiu Safeha inwhich fhe petitioner was reiaoved, Tbsr^after, the petitioner has preferred an appcal beforc thc CoBector, Jaifijgir-Chaina, wluch was also disnussed bv the CoBectorvide'order-datetl 18.6.2002. Fiirtlier case of the .1 iioti&cation dated 29.9.2000 petitioner is that vide govemment issued by fhe Pauchayat & Rural Developinent Departnient it; T^as been clarified that any prpposal icgarding appointment or renjioval of the Panchayat Kanni will be approved tn fhe ineetmg ofGr^ia Sabha haviag fiill Coram and ifthe meetiag is adjouraed for want icbululiuu (jau L>e pabscd, of Coram, fhea ia the said incetmK no XI-HC-22 *ii*<wi s*)*irai 3^ aiFTRPT, 3TfNI1®,RlctlU^ 3ll^l<iach W^ 200 ft^ sn^r^ir R-ii«t)3n^r sh*< (rf?(T. ^ v.^ •^. ^^ ^,6' "• -^ ^f ^ ^' an^r ?«fra<lrf?tT It is adnutted position adjoumed ineetihg, therefore, froin thc post of Paachayat Pancliavat Karmi Scheme. Evei3| as per Rule7 of the C.G. Pa^ Rules, 1999 fhe respondents b oost Panchayat Karmi (Secret^iyj slieet and enquirc into the opportunily to the petitioner passed the order after consid matter, but in this case, no ei was conducted as per provisi< these counts the pctition ofthc In the resiilt tfae petitioii| piders dated 9.1.2001 & 18.6.: aad respondents are directed to Certified copy as per rule^ Consequenfly, M.W.P.&, I|. »i<it<-i41-itiiti<tT^teI3'<RresR ^)3lf^IT3TI^r J|iat tbe resolution_was passed iu. the isolution for reinoval of the petitioner (iarmi (Sccretary) is eontraiy to fhc oftierwise, for awarding major penally (ichayat Seivice (Discipline & Appeal) "fore renioving the petitioaer froin the ought to have issued the charge aUegations & charges aftcr giviag p reply the same and ought to have ^ring aU the t'elevaat aspects of the ^quir}r before reiaoval of the petttioner ^ns of above rule. Therefore, 0x1 both pctitioner dcscnres to bc aUowed. offhe petitioner is aflowed, unpugned 002 (Annexure P-2 & P-3) are quashed reiastate tlie peti.tioner iu service. A. are also stands disposed of. Sd/- LC.Bhadoo 7" judge ('iti;^)^)