•^s^ ^^•ts>" ..-' A^^J; IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO..^.^.T:..OF 2010 Li3.^.. Bila!raiSti PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ ^ Surat Lal Sahu, S/o Shri Nohar Prasad Sahu, aged about 37 years, Resident of Village Se, Post Gorida Tahsil Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh [C.G.] VERSUS / 1. State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary Panchayat & Social Welfare Departraent, D. K. S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4. The Gram Panchayat, Gonda through Secretary- Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Gonda Post-Gonda, Tahsil Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh [C.G.J 5. The Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Gonda Post-Gonda, Tahsil Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COUN&TITUTION OF INDIA. —liS^. f C"'./9 '^ .!•' !! g? ^. xe°l'~';"^ HIGH COURT OT' CHHATllSGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETITION CS) No. 435 of2Q10 PETITIOKBR : Surat Lai Sahu. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Cfaflattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER AR1ICLE 226 OF THE CONSIITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'bie Shn SatishK. Aenihptri, J, Present: Shri R.S.FateI, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thatur, Panel Lanyer for the State/respondent No. 1 & 2. Shri Pgwan Sfarivastava, Advoeats for fhe rsspondent No. 3. Shri Roop Naik, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. Shri Bhaskar Payasi, Advocate for the respondent No. 5. (Passed on 23" day of April, 2010) 1. The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi (Secretan') on 03.11.1995 (Aimexiire P/2). Subsequently, by orders dated 27.08.2006 and 28.08.2006 (Aimexure P/'l), sen.'iees ofthe petitioner as Panchayat Kai-mi was terminated. The petitioner has itnpugned the said orders m fhis writ petition on the grouad that the impugned orders temimating the services of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Kanni was passed without foUowing the statutor^' proeedure as enshrined in Rule 7 of C.G. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short '•the Rules"). 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits tfaat Rule 7 provides for detailed procedure for imposing major penalties i.e. rsmoval from sendce. According to the leamed counsel for the petitioner, removal from sendce comes within the pun'iew of major penalty. . • 3. Leamed couasel appearing fer the State/'rsspondsnt No. 1 subfflits that admittedly, the procedure as prescribed in Rule 7 ofthe Rules was not fcllowed. 4. Further, the respondent No. 4, in its retum has not controvei-ted the allegation that the duly prescribed statutory procedure has not been followed while reniovmg the petitioner fi'om the post of Panchayat Secretar}''. The submission on behaif of fhe respondent No. 4 is firstly, that the petition has besn ffled afier a lapse of about 4 years and sesondly, fhe petitioner has approached this Court wifhout takmg recourse to appellate forum. 5. Be tbat as it may, flie petitioner was appointed as Panehayat Kanni. It is not the case of the respondents the procedure as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules was followed before flse impugned order was passed. A Division Bench of fhis Couft in its order dated 25.07.2006 passed in W.P. No. 1656 of 2004, and tliis Court, in its order dated ^'^'•;•••? 15.11.2006, passed in W.P. No. 1850 of 2001, have held that Rule 7 offlie Rules have to be foilowed in the case oftennmation of a Panchayat employee. 6. This Court in Dhaluram Kcsaria v. State ofC.G. & Others , Beegan Ram v. State of C.G. & Others2, and Prakash Chand Soni v. State ofC.G. & Others3, held that the non-compliance offhe statutory provisions and denial ofprinciples ofnaturaljustice tantamount to mfraction ofnot only the provisions ofRule 7 offlie Rules of 1999, but, the pro\.'isions of Article 311 (2) ofthe Constitiition oflndia also. The order of removal being penal in nature, visiting flie civil consequences, cannot be passed withoirt holding the enquin- in accordance with the elaborate provisions as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules. 7. It is thus clear that the respondenfs have not followed fhe statutoiy provisions of law before imposing the major penaity of removal of the petitioner fi'om fhe post of 8. For the reasons and the discussion made hereinabove, and the dicta laid down by the Co-urt m various cases (swra), the orders dated 27.08.2006 and 28.08.2005 (Annexure P. 1) are bad and are qiiashed. The petitioner is not entitled to any back- wages on account of the fact that flie petitioner has not approached tbis Court immediately and has slept over his rights for about four years. It is, however, made clear tliat this omer shall not come in flie way of the respondents from icitiating the proceedings against ths petitioiier, ifthey are so advised, strictly in accordance with law and in temis ofthe procedure prescribed ia Rule 7 ofthe Rules. 9. Accordingly, the writ pstition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto C08IS. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Alilit J. 2006 (2) CGLJ 186 2.2006LTCG4I 3. 2005LT(CG) 151