,^n,^,^, ^ -%^gC.i3' ^.^i:,'.. .' i'-^ "• BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ W. P. No.6J^</"> 72008 PETITIONER : ^^.•' ^Sfe /•••^.-•^ y Santosh Singh S/o.- Baldev Singh, aged about- 42 years, R/o.- Village Dumardihkala, Post- Khaprikhurd, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS y 1) Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2) Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon(C.G.) ,3) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon(C.g.) ,.. 4) Gram Panchayat Dumardihkala, fhrough- its Sarpanch (not mentioned in the impugned order), Village Dumardihkala, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE^26/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. bS. V4: ~M \ i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (S) No. 6573 of2008 PETITIONER : Santosh Singli. \rER8U8 RESPONDENT8 : Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare Departinent &0thers. WMT PETITION L7NDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Slm Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Aiiup Majumdar, Advocate tbrthe petitioner. Sliri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents 1 & 2. Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate forthe respondents 3 & 4, ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 29th day of April, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30.09.2008 (^mexiire P/l) passed by the Director Panchayat, Chhattisgai'h in Appeal Case No, 371/A-89/06.07 whereby the appeal ofthe petitioner has been disiiiissed holding that the show cause notice and reply thereto was enough to satisfy the principles of natural justice and smce the petitioner was appoiiited under the provisions of section 69(1) of the Chhattisgai-h Paiichayat Raj Adhiniyam,1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 1993) the same was cancelled by the competent authority and as such, there is no requirement offollovvingthe procedure ofiaw. 2. The brief facts, in nutshelL are that the petitioner was appointed as PaiichayatKarmion 14.08.2001 (Annexiire P/2). Thereafter, he was notifled as Panchayat Secretary under provisions ofsection 69(1) offlie Adhmiyam, 1993 by the Collector, Rajnandgaon on 15.01.2002 (Aimexure P/3). During his sendce time, a show cause notice was issued to tlie petitioner on 29.05.2007 (Annexure P/4) by the Deputy Dii'ector, Panchayat aiid Social welfare, RajnajadgaoiL calling upon him to respond to the allegations of financial irregiilarities. The petitioner ^^^^' 6. submitted his reply on 19.6.2007 (Aimexure P/5). After consideration of the reply, the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, District Rajnandgaon, by order dated 13.08.2007 (Annexure P/6), cancelled the initial appointm^nt dated 14.01.2002 amountmg to removal from service. Thus, this petition. Sliri Majumdar, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner subimts that the Panchayat Kaniii/Secretaty cannot be removed without following the statutory procedure as prescribed under Rule 7 of tfae Chhattisgarh Panchayat Sei-vice (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short 'theRules, J 999). On the other hand, Shri Akhilesh Kumar, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and 4 submits that since an enquiry was conducted against the Sarpanch oftlie said Gi'am Panchayat it was not necessary to hold enquiry as contemplated under mle 7 ofthe Rules, 1999. Even othei-wise, the petitioner was given a show cause notice and he has filed reply thereto. .Shri Sliridhai', leamed Panel LawyGr appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and 2 subiiuts that the statutory mles, as prescribed, cannot be igtiored as law is well settled that no one should be condemned unheard. Even in the enquiry, the Panchayat Secretary vvas not aflorded an oppoitanity ofhearmg. Heard leamed counsel for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended fliereto. It is not in dispute that tfae iinpugiied order ^liich was under challenge before the Deputy Director, Panchayat, was passed without followmg the statutory procedure as prescribed under Rule 7 oftlie Rules, 1999. .J.^^^ '/°$ ..-^ {• Contention ofleamed counsel for the respoiident No. 3 and 4 is conti'ar^- to the well settled prmciples oflaw and desei'ves to be rejected as Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999 prescribes that no order imposing on a member ofthe Panchayat Service any major penalty shall be passed without holding a fonnal enquiiy after framing definite chai'ges on the basis ofallegations and communication of such charges alongvvith statement of such allegations to the member ofPanchayatService and also having granted opportunity for written statement ofdefence. 8. ^ identical issue came up for hearing befbre the Hon'ble Division Bench ofthis Court va.RooplalNcyakv. State ofChhattisgarh1 wherein it has been held that Panchayat Karmi/Secretary caimot be removed without following the statutory procedure as prescribed under Rule 7 of the RulesJ999. Thus, the impugned order which has been affinned by the Director, Paiichayat on 30/09/2008 (Annexiire P-1) is bad aiid vitiated. 9. In the case on hand, nothing as such has been done, no enquiry was conducted by the disciplmary authority and the order ofpunishment has been passed. In view of the foregoing aiid for the reasons stated hereinabove, the unpugiied order dated 30.09.2008 (Annexure P/l) and order dated 13/08/2007 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Weltare, Rajnandgaon are quashed. 10. The writ petition is allowed with all consequential benefits. 11. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1(2006)4MPHT99(CG)