TTN p No..1..?.‘. ./2oU Ani u hiy l Kmar Atre ‘0 Praasal , age % » V r abo y, y atml, Ex Pancaat Sna hy Kati S t y m y gph Gm Panchaat Naoaaml; T ehs il‘Mungl i , e str Elasur C.G ) Dllct lp ( 37 khL d ut 32 ears b cast'e i ) i Z 1 i i i State hhih : i of Cattsgaxg ' trou g cre a ry , Depa rtment of Panchaya : t an r evelomegt I , Secretr at D.K.. vBmvan/ p (G)' Raiur C.. x The Coecto llr, Blaapu i ‘ v a Che ve Offlcer ’ a $ ana Panchaya , Mmng 31 i? Jpd t 1 a T’v Divisonal §ff1cer x ‘R , g ‘ m and gcre a r x hesub i en‘enue Muneli l m ancayat , gph a i d c 5 : g E Naoaari, § j S Teh 1 vMungel i , istrict‘gailas‘pur (ga N TH HIGH Gogggggmum P m EsND ‘ ggIxOER, i h h S t a Rual Dp ay 3 i The lf Executl The Gra Ph I L gglg AT EILASUR RgQENgg ‘ (Passed 0'1 this 23‘” aay or February, 2010) 1i. i By this petitim. ’ihe petmaner $eeks to chaiEenge the iegaiity and % ‘ vaiidity of fhe oyder daiad 14-11-2002 {Amexure — Pi?) passed by ? 1 the Ad&it§ona% Co?éect0i', E§¥assur and the order dated 1G-12—2IEOZ {Annexure —- P12} passed by the $a¥panah Gram Panchayat} 3 Nagopahafi, pus’suant t0 ‘Ehe order daied‘ ’% £4 1-2092. 2‘. j The facts, m nutsheai, f0? dispesd o§ the case} are ma§ the petitioner ‘ ‘ was appointed as Parchayat Kawni er; 2‘414 995 A! ef a sudden ‘ by order dated 144 1-2002 (Amexufe —- PH}, 0”} he nasge 0f some , comptamis made bv me wagers the Addimnal uoiiector Baiaspur directed the Gram Panchayati Nagepahen i0 remmie ihe pemsme; E. earn €‘ne post of Panchayat Karmi. Qn‘the basis oféhe saié ordef, : the S'arpanch, Gram Panchayat, Nagegpahari: passed the impugneci é i remevai Lorder dated 10-12-20G2 (A:¥mexure - P/2). ‘Thus! this , petitian. 3. ‘ Shn Shastrh ieamed ccunsei apeeeymg f0: the petitionw wouid i submit that Since the mandatew tatutIOi'y provxsmns 9f Ruie I «3f the Chhaftisgarh Panchayat Service \D:sm;§aime anti Appeei) Rmes wgv 1 {fof 3110;? “zhe Rules, 1%9" wefe he? fo¥icwe before rem vmg the peht mer from the posi of Panchaya’: tKa m: ih: impugned remevai H%GH SOUR? OF CHHA‘E’TISGARH : BiLfxSPUR WRIT PEYITQON N013? OF 3383 RETmONER ‘ Anii Kumar Ahirev x Vei’sus RESPONDENTS State cf Chhamsgarh & athsfs (Wm Pe‘mor mder Amde 226 22? 9f ne Cafastitmion cf mdia} Smgie Bewc’i Lian b e Shri’Sa’sISh K‘ Agnihwi: J. Rresem :- Shri JK. Shastri, Advocate for t§1e petitwa'aer. 8m NN. Rey, Pane§ Lawyer ¥sr iihe State. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocaw for the mspmdents No.3 & 5. v GRDaR {OR}? ‘ , . / i order was mega: and bad 0n the gwund tha? the petHoner was mt ‘1 afforded any opportunity 0f hearirag. To but‘te’ess his sabmisséon, 7 iearned counsel appemmg far the petitEorier ciied 4319 decisiens 9f ’{his ‘Court fendered m Raj Kum‘ar v. State of Chhatiisgam ami ; Others1, Bhaiuram Kosazria v. $tate a!‘ QG. & othefsz, which was relied on in Anjordas v. State cf Ghhattisgarh 8: others? 4.‘ 3 On the ether hand, Shri Dubey, ieamed caunsd appearing fear the respondents No.3 & 5! weuid submit ithat a Show cause name containing chames wa3 i$suec§ ta the pe‘Eitioaer (m 26-31-2002 and ‘ {espense theyeon was med by the ‘pet‘at’aener that Satisfies the requirement of pr§nc§pies of nature! gusiise and thereafrer, the impugned Order was passed! which is §egak just & proper. 5‘ i have heard ieamed ceunsel apeearing'for i‘ne parties, perused rhe pieadings emd the documents appended therein. 6. lndispu’tabw, a show cause notice was issued containing ceaiein chargee, but the definite charges on the basis of ailegetions was never commur‘iica’ted and thereafter, no enquiry es con‘tempieied under the provisions of the Rules, 199§ was heid. The impugried order was passed on ihe basis of severai comeiaints as stated by the respondents No.3 & 5 in their rerum without scruiiny and examination of the so caiied compiaints. Thus, it oannoi be heid that the basic ix. g i principie of eudi alierem perrem was roiiowed. Even otherwise, iiiere r is a vioiation of statutory Ruies, 1§§9 Which lay down the proeedure ; before imposition of penaity of removal from sew§ce on Penohaya‘a b r i Karmi; 7. ‘Ruie 7 of the Ruies, 1999 orovides forg procedure before terminating service of a member of Panohayat. in the instant case, it is apparent i A‘ WP No.1850 of 2001 (decided on 15—1 ’i $366) ' i ‘ 2 3 {2006(2) {2008‘(iii) C.G.L.J MPJR—‘CG 186} 110} i i i i i i r i i 7 7 7 ,i, i i ’7 iii oi 7 ,7 i that the said provis‘mns ware mt fai§owed¥ n9 defrrm'e charges were framed and the peiiiienef was mi served with the statements af charges befm'e hoiding an enqu'ary, aeadmg to termineiien 0f fhe p‘efatiwer T'mm h'ss servaces arid if: ¥ac‘t neither the shew cauee m‘iirze Was isseaed raw the eequiry was heid. ”mus! the impugned order ef femovai is unsustamabk. 1i is ev§dent that the impugned remevei order was gassed w'm'mui foilowing me sta’wtory and maedaten’y procedure of iaw, as preecribed under Ru§e _7 of the Ruiesg e999. The precedure for hoiding an enquiry iS ens‘hrined m Ruie 'f ef ihe Ruies, ”iggg fer impesmon of maior penaibj. Hence; ‘ihe afemovai is “ead am v§§ated en 'the ground 9f non-compiiance m‘ me smmiow prevéeiems and dame! 0f ihe gxincimes of natmei justEce. i’i amounts te in‘framiee of net omv the maviswris of Ruie 2’ 0f the Ruieeg 1g§9 bui aESC» the prewsmes of H'iicie 31 H2} cf the Corstitution of edaa The Greer was in fact penai §n eature, having cm} censequences an». as seen comp§§ance of "ihe eiabamk pmvis’aons, as enshnned in Edie 7 ef the 7V Rake 1939 was mandatery in khe pfesené caee. {See Raj Kumar ‘ (supra), DhaKuram Kesaria {supza} anti engordas {supre}}. Against ihe dec§s§on {endered by ‘thissél‘eun in Raj Kumar {supra}, t?e Grain Panceavet Han}: ere‘en’ed Specie Leave “a Appeal {Cwii} No 2365 of 2007 (Gram Panchavet Hard: v State ef Chn‘msgam ‘8‘ Ors.) before the Supeeme Count; wnieh was eaenxissed as a \mihdrawn on 15-1-2e’1o. ‘ i For the [reasons mentioned hereinabfeve inat rne perir‘rener was removed from the post 0f Pemhayet Kermi in arr arbitrary manner, without renewing rhe princ‘reies or'na’ruraa jusrice end further wiihout ' foikowing ihe statuiory piooeeure, ‘rhe Epet'a’iioner remainee ow: of job since a iong perrod and aecerdingEto rearnee counsei rer the 00. x i petiiioner, ihe pet§t5oner has swered great fmanciai 365$, thus grant of 30% back wages wougd sub-serve me %n4;ere$t of justice. Resmtaniiy, the wit petétion is ai§owec§ with baak wage$x as afore—stated. The gmpugned Ojdea dated §4—11—2G{}2 {Anneaxwe — PM) and 10-12-2G02 {Annexufe -' PI2) are $et asicie. Howevef, me Iesponciems are at Ebeity it) §nitiate discépiinanj ac;ien against the petitioaer, if so advised, in accordame wii‘h iaw and m Ees’ms of ihe procedure presm'ibed in Ruie ? of the Rules: Q93 There shai! be n0 order asto costs. / ,v ,\ sau'sh K. Agnihofri Judge 1 Sd/- _