RESPONDENTS § § ) } ELGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA§PUR ERKT PETITION No. 3930 of 2004 PETITIONER : Dinesh Kumar Chouhan, aged about 35 son of Shri Janakram Chouhan, resident of village and P0st Konpara, Distt. J’ashpur (C.G.) VERSUS . State of Chhattisgarh, through: The Secretary, D€pa11mmt of Panchayat, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) I 2. The Sub Divisional OiEcer, (Revenue) Tall. And Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) ' 3. The Gram Panchayat Konpara, Through Sarpanch, G1am Panchayat Konpara, Dis‘zi. Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF _ INDIA $B: Hbn’ble Shri Satish K. AGm'hotn’ J. w Present: Shri Bhaskar Pa§asi, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Pane} Lawyer for the State/respondents l and 2. Despite sewice ofllotice, none appears on behaTf ofrespondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER 1})assed , on"Tm 05 day of May, 2009) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 12.08.2004 (Annexure Px’l) whereby the Gram Panchayat, Konpara, has temiinated the services ofthe petitioner from the host of Panchayat Secretary. The facts, in nutsheil, are that the petitioner was working as Seeretary of the Gram Panchayat Konpara. A compiaint was made by the viiiagers gigainst the petitioner to the respondent No. 2. The Sub Divisional OEicer i.e. the respondent No. 2 registered a case against the petitioner on the hasiS ofthe oomplaint made by the viiiagers. The respondent No. 2 ordered to convene a special Gram Sahha meeting on 12.08.2004. On the basis of resolution passed on 12.08.2004 by the Gram Panchayat Konpara, the services of the petitioner was terminated. Thus, this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no charge— sheet has been issued and no enquiry has been conducted before the impugnedorder was passed which is contrary to the provisions of Rule 4M F’M 2 6v 1% 7 ofthe Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, (for short “the Rules, 1999’). Per comm, Smt. Ghai, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents l and 2 submits that admittedly, no enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999 was conducted, however, the petitioner was served with a show-cause—notiee before the impugned order was passed. 5. The question of law involved in this case is asto whether the petitioner, who was declared as Panchayat Secretary can be removed from the post withoui complying proper procedures as laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. Admittedly, as averred by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner ‘that the petitioner was removed without supplying the charge-sheet and without conducting any enquiry. 6. It is well settled principle of law as enshrined in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 that ifthe Gram Panchayat proposes to remove a Panchayat Karmi including Panchayat Secretary, the same may be done in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999. 7. Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat, before passing the impugned termination order has not complied with the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 199. 8. This Court, in Dhaluram Kosaria v. Stare ofCG and othersl, observed as under: “l9. It is further admitted by all the parties that the procedure for we holding an enquiry is prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 for imposition of major penalty, that has not been followed. Hence, the termination is bad and vitiated on the ground of non—compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of the principles of natural justice. It amounts to infraction of not only the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 but the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India also. The order is in fact penal in nature having civil consequences and as such the elaborate provision of Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 was applicable in the case of the petitioner before terminating his services.” 9. Further, in Beegam Ram v. State ofCG and othersz, this Court observed as under: . 12006 (2) CGLJ 186 3 Non-compliance of the tatutory provisions and denial of principles of natural justice tantamounts to infraction o not only the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 but the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India also. The order of removal ing penal in nature, visiting with civil (evil) consequences, cannot be assed without holding enquiry in accordance with the elaborate provisions, as prescribed in Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999. ll. lt is thus clear that the respondents have not followed the statutory provisions oflaw before passing the impugied order. l2. win view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.08.2004 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotdi Judge L;‘ .u‘ 1. ,1 Gowri E 2006 LT (CG) 41 @ “ n’ ri f t g g t f ‘7. Wi‘ih regard to exercise ofpower by the High Court urxder Axficle 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hoble Supreme Court in catena of decisions have laid dovm the piinciples of law that the High Court has jusdiction and power to interere if the Court is satisfied that the error is manifest and apparent on he face of the proceedins, ciear ignorance and utter disregard of provisions of law and/or a rave injusice or gross violation o justice has occasioned thereby. In the present ease, Revenue Authorities/Tribunals have completely ignored the satutory provisions of Rule 7 of t he Rules, 1999 and there is manifest error f the facts on e face of record, without requiring any investigation or enquiry. Admittedly, the alleged show cause notice dated 27.2.2000 (Annexure R/3) could not have been served through the Gudi Kotwar on 24.02.2000, three days efore the issue of show cause notice. No notice as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 was issued to the petitioner. Prior to submission of the eniry report on 29.6.2000 (Annexure 5), the Gram, Panchayat resolved to remove the petitioner from his service on 18.05.2000 and pursuant thereof, order oftlie removal was passed on 30.05.20 (Annexure P/3)” t o th b qu R/ 00 s f be p