HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR 'HilSE ResBondents Writ Pet!ti9n__Np,514 of 2003 Smt. Rajwanti Devi W/o Moharsai aged about 37 years R/o Hariharpur, Vikaskhand Pratappur, Distt. Surguja. Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary of Panchayat & Gramin Vikash, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur 2. The Collector Ambikapur Distt. Surguja 3. SDO, Pratappur Distt. Surguja. 4. Chief Executive Officer Pratappur, Distt. Surguja. 5. Ransai S/o D.KI. Sai aged about 30 years, R/o Hariharpur Vikashand Pratappur Distt. Surguja Ravindra Singh S/o Ram Singh aged about 40 years Secretary, Gram Panchavat Hariharour Janpad Panchayat Pratappur, Distt. Surguja. Shri V.A.Goverdhan, counsei for the petitioner. Shri A.S.Kachhawaha, Government Advocate for the State. (Passed on 16m Mareh, 2007$ The petitioner, who was working as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Hariharpur, has been removed from the service on the ground that she had misappropriated the fund of the Gram Panchayat. (2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the rsspondents could not have removed the petitioner on the ground that she had misappropriated the fund of the Gram Panchayat without holding an enquiry, and according-to the tearned counset, the action of the respondents is in vioiation of principlss of naturai justice. •2. (3) There is substantia! merit in the contention canvassed by tearned counsel for the petitioner, that a person cannot be removed from the service on the ground of misappropriation of fund without hoiding a DroDsr enctuin/ as contemDiated under Artic!e 311 of the Constltution of India. (4) In the instant case, the petitioner was hoiding the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Hariharpur. She was removed from the post soieiy on the ground of misappropriation of fund of She Gram Panchayat without holding an enqulry. This action of the respondents is in violation of the principie of natural justice, which is not sustainabie under the law. (5) Accordingly, the writ petition requires to be allowed and is accordingiy a!iowed. The impugned order passed by the respondent is set aslde. However, since the term ofthe petitioner has come to an endi she would not be entitled for reinstatement in the oost, but recoverv of the fund, alleged to have been misappropriated by her, shati not be made from her v/ithout holding an enquiry. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- ChiefJustice