IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BI , LASPUR WRIT PETITION No <§ t gkr' of 2001 PETITIONER Vedram Sahu, Son of Kirtram Sahu, aged about 37 years, resident of Village Kalmi, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir—Champa (Chh‘attisgarh) k? VERSUS 1. The Stata of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Social Welfare, D.K. Bhawan, Government of Chhattisgarh, Secretariat, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) RESPONDENTS Director, Panchayat Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Collector, Government of Chhattisgarh, Janj gir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) Sub-Divisional Officer and prescribed Authority under Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) Mrs. Bhuribai, Wife of Balakram Sahu,} aged about 55 years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kalmi, Tahsil malkharoda, DistrictJanjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) ' é j "2-- PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227' OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI MANDAMUS ETC. AND/OR, NECESSARY DIRECTION/ORDERS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILA3PUR Single Bench: Hon’ble 3hr! Sntish K. Agihotri, J. W. P. No. 2175 of 2001 Shri Rajesh Pandey, counsel for the pe11'tioner. Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the State] respondents No. 1 to 4. None for the respondent No.5. ORAL ORDER (17th July, 2006) a 1. The pmsent petm‘‘on nled under the Article 226/ 227 of the VConsu‘tution of India impugns the order dated 6.8.2001, passed by the Additional Collector, respondent No.3, whereby, the resolution dated 31.3.2000 passed by the Gtnm Panchayat removing the petitioner n‘om the post of Panchayat Karmi/ Secretary was held to be valid and legal. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the petin'oner was appointed as Panchayat Kanni on 12.3. 1999, by a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Kalmi, by order dated 26.4.1999 passed by the Collector W.e.f. 12.3.1999. The services of the petitioner as Panchayat / / ” nun Pet‘nioner : Versus Respondents : The State of Chhattisgarh 8r. if“ Kauai/Secretary was mmoved by the msolution dated 31.3.2000, which was subsequently approved by the Gram Sabha in its special meeting dated 8.4.2000. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the pe1i1ioner, submits that removal nom the Panchayat services amounts to imposition of major penalty. The Madhya Pradesh 2 9 & a Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, (Hereinafter “Panchayat Rules”, 1999) clearly provides ‘ procedme for imposing major penalties. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the procedure as prescribed under Panchayat Rules, 1999, was not followed in the present case, before the order of termination and as such the resolution of Gram Pancbayat dated 31.3.2000, removing services of the pen‘tioner hm the post of Panchayat Karmi/Secretary is illegal, void ab-initio. Subsequently, connrmation by the Gram Sabha in its resolution dated 8.4.2000 is also illegal and bad. 1 4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the resolun'on dated 31132000 passed by the Gram Panchayat and resolution dated 8.4.2000 passed by Gram Sabha, approving the Iesoluh'on of Gram Panchayat, removing the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karim/Secretary, med an appeal before the Sub Divisional OEcer, under the Provisions ofrthe Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. The Sub Divisional Omcer by his order dated 4. 10.2000 came to the conclusion, that there was no resolution on 31.3.2000, as admitted by Smt. ///’ t/ t .‘t J :t l t tag... Bhuri Bai Saxyanch, herself in the inquiry conducted by the Panchayat O$cen The Sub Divisional O$cer cancelled the resolution dated 31.3.2000 and allowed the appeal of the peh'tioner vide order dated 4.10.2000 (Annexure P—3) K 5. The petitioner was allowed to work as Panchayat Karmi/ Secmtéxy (Annexure P—3). In appeal, the Addih'onal Collector, Janjgir, Champa, by oxder dated 6.8.2001 in Revision Case No. 4/A-89 (15) 2000-2001 came to the az W /~:, conclusion that the petitioner was gven su$cient show w’ cause notice befom the resolution dated 31.3.2000 was passed by the Gram Panchayat. 6. The Additional Collector did not consider the observation of Sub Divisional O$oer, that in fact there was no L resolution at all on 31.3.2000, which was reported by the Panchayat Oiiicer in his report on the basis of statement made by Smt. Bhuri Bai, then Saxpanch. He has also not considered as to Whether Provisions of Rule 7 of H Panchayat Rules 1999, were followed in its letter and spirit before imposin'on of major penalty of removal nom S€IV1CB . Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out show cause notices dated 25.3.2000 and 26.3.2000. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, for the dist time, the alleged reasons for show cause was given in the show cause notice 26.3. 2000. /’)’9 Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, Learned-Deputy Advocate General with Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Learned Panel lawyer, submits that the order passed by the Sub Divisional O$cer dated 4.10.2000 is correct, as the same was considexed on the basis of Ieport submitted by the Panchayat O$cer. The Additional Collector in Revision has not considered the “é material facts while setting aside the order dated 4.10.2000 passed by the Sub Divisional O$cen Learned counsel further submits that admittedly the Provisions of Rule 7 of the Panchayat Rules, 1999, were not followed. A notice was issued by this Court on respondent No.5 on 2.3.2006. Dasti non'ce was also permitted. Notice was served on respondent No.5 as per afhdavit filed by the petitioner on 28.3.2006. Despite service of the notice, the respondent No.5 has chosen not to ggppear befoxe this Court. Hence, this matter is heard in absence of the respondent No.5, on the basis of documents hled by the petitioner as well as the Iespondents No. 1 to 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents appended to the petition, as well as to the return, it is clearly established that no show cause notice as contemplated in Rule 7 of Panchayat Rules, 1999 after naming dehnite charges on the basis of allegations, was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was not aEorded any opportunity of hearing in true sense before decision was taken to remove the services of the petitioner. The resolution, even if it is passed is contrary‘ \,/ N §LN to the pmvisions, as pmscribed\ in Rule 7 of Panchayat Rules, 1999. 11. For the masons stated above, the impugned order dated 6.8.2001 passed by the Additional Collector, is quashed and set aside. The order dated 4.10.2000, passed by the Sub Divisional O$cer (Annexure P~3) is restomd. The '1; petitioner is entitled to the relief granted by the Sub\ Divisional O$cer in his order dated 4. 10.2000. 12. The petition is acootdingly allowed. No Older as to costs. 3d!- Satish K. Agnihotri‘ " Judge