C'HHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WR!T^ET!T!ON_No.2ffi4of2(M» Sobhnathram Mehto, son of Ouharuram, aged about 31 years, resideiit, of Gran Fatepur, P.0. Jariya, Tah: Jashpur, Dist. Jashpumaear (C.G.) ^'ERSUS ! • RESPONDENTS ; l. State of Chhattisi Pancliayat Departiiidit, D.K-Bliawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Cliief Executive Officer, Janpat Panohayat, 3. Sarpancli, PMichayat, Manora, Dist. Jashpur (CO) WMT.PETTTIONUb3)MARTICl£^26/Z27_QF. E^&NS33TUTlD^^ SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Aouhotri, J. . Present: Shri Shailesh Ahuja, Advoeate Ibr the petitioner. Sbii Satish Gupta, Govermnent Advocate for tbe State. oa 22°fldav of 3t ,y of JaauaQ.', 2008) 1. The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi on 28.10.95 (Anaexure P/l). Subsequently, by order dated 21.10.2000 (Annexure P/3), the services ofthe petitioner as Panehayat Kanni was tenninated. The petitioner has impugned the said order dated 21.10.2000 in ttiis writ petition on the ground that 'ttie impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner from tbs post of Panchayat Kanni was passed Vi'itfaout foUowing fhe provisions eashrined in Rule 7 of C.G. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Ryles, 1999 (for short "the Rides"). . - 2. Learced counsel appearing for the petitioner submits fhat Rule 7 provides for detailed procedure for imposing major penalties i.e. removal from serrice. According to the leamed coimsel for the petitioner, removal from sen/ice comes wilhin the purview ofmajor penalty. 3. Be fhat as it may, fhe petitioner was appointed as Pau.chayat Karmi. It is not the case ofthe respondents that any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner or any proeedure as^prescribed in Rule 7 oflfae Rules was followed before tfae impugned order was passed. A Divisioa Bench ofthis Court in its order dated • 25.07.2006 passed in W.P. No. 1656 of 2004 md this Court in its order dated 15.11.2006 passed in W.P. No. 1850 of 2001, have held that Rule 7 of' RuSes faave to be followed infhe case oftennination ofa Panchayat employse. .%f'i? 4. This Court in ISialuram Kosaria Vs. State of C.G. & Others , Beegan Ram State ofC.G. & Others*, and Prakash Chand Soni Vs. State ofC.G. &' held that fhe non-cotnpliance of the statutory provisions and denial principles ofnatural iustice tantamount to infraction ofnot only the of Rule 7 ofthe Rules of 1999, but, the provisions of Article 311 (2) Constitution of India also. The order ofremoval being penal in nalure, Ihe civil consequenees, cannot be passed without holding the enquiry accordance with the elaborate provisions as prescribed ia Rule 7 ofthe m les 5. It is thus elear that Ifae respondents have not followed the statutorv provisions post ofPanchayat Kanni. 6. For the reasoas and the discussion made hereinabove, and fhe dicta laid down by the Court in various cases (supra), fhe order dated 21.10.20(X) (Annexure P/3) is bad and is quashed. 7. On the auestion of ba.ck wages. no foundation has beea laid to egtabli fact that whether the petitioner was gainfally employed elsewhere or fhis period. Even otherwise, keeping iii view Ifae fact tfaat tfae has been vitiated not on merit but, on account of non-coinpliance statutory provisions before tenninating the services ofthe petitioner, wages would be sufBcient in the interest ofjustice. It is, however, made olear proceedings against the petitioner, iffhey are so advised, strictly in Eweordanoe Accardinelv. the writ petition is allowed to ifae extent indicated above. No */ "' JL . . . Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge 1- 1W6 (2) CGLr i86 3..20!)SLTCG42 3.2005LT(CO}151 AiOit