K HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BjLASPUR PETITIONER Writ Petition No.1 327 of 2065 Harikrishna Verma, S/o. Jwam Prasad Vanna, aged about 32 years, R/c. Viuage Koiiha, Block ‘ Baioda Bazar, Tah. Baioda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Versus RE$PONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh thraugh the Secretary, Panchayat Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur. The Coilecton Distt. Raipur.“ 3. Janpad Panchayat, Bafoda Bazaf, through the GhEef Executive Officer, Janpad Partchayat, Baiocia Eazar, D§sit. Raipur. 4. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Wiage — Koléha, Block & Tahsi! Baioda Bazar, Distt. Raipure (Writ Petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of indie) SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. Ankit Singhai, Shri Sam'ey K, Agrawai and Shri Soui'abh Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Smite Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 & ZISwte. Mr. Arun Sac Govt. Advocate for resoondent No 3 Mr. Majoj Parenjpe, oeunsel for the respondeni lQoA. ORAL oRDea (Passed on this 15‘“ day ereeptember, 2998) Being aggrieved by the communication dated 24-2-2005 (Annexure PIY-A) from Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Village Koliha, Block &Tahsil Baloda Bazar, Dist, Raipur to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baloda Bazar, Dist. Raipur,whereby the petitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary. on the basis of resolution passed by the Gram Sabha on 17-2-2005, the petitioner has filed this petition. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order was passed without following the provisions of iaw as enshrined in Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 19% as no opportunity of hearing to put-forward his case, was afforded to the petitioner. This ccurt having considered the fact passed the intefim ordef on 6—4-2005 staying the order of removai, till the disposal of the writ petition, as a resuit of which the petitioner has been continuing as Panchayat Karmi, tili date‘ 3) Mr. Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the responden’t No.4 submits that it is weii settied orincipies of law that if an order invoives civii consequences, the requirement is compiiance of principies of naturai justice 4) Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner has been continuing as Panchayat Karmi, at this stage, no adjudication is necessary. in the event the respondent No.4 is granted iiberty to take appropriate steps, if so advised, in future, in accordance with ruies. Thus, by operation of impugned order, the order dated 24-2-2005 (Annexure P/Y-A) has become ineffective and is accordingiy quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent No.4 to take appropriate steps, if so advised, in accordance with iaw foiiowing the provisions of iaw. 5) in View of the foregoing, the petition is disposed of. Consequentiy, \ pending applications, if any, stand disposed of, 'Sd/w Q satish K. Agnihmri Raiu . I Judge .