IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR J w.p.No. ( {‘CUW 2003 PETITIONER: - Kanhaiya Lal Pandey, Aged about 25 years, S/o Shri Lala Prasad Pandey, Panchayat Karmi,Gram Panchayat at Nipani, Tahsil Patan, District Durg,(C.G.). V/s £2 RESPONDENTS : :1 VA State of Chhattisgarh through the r Secretary Panchayat Avem Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur, (C.G.). y 2. The Collector, / Durg, (C.G.). / 3. Janpad Panchayat, Patan Through the Chief Executive Officer, District Durg, (C.G.). 4.Gram Panchayat Nipani Through The Sarpanch Block Patan, District Durg, (C.G.). 5. Gram Sabha through ‘Sarpanch / ‘ @ /.‘ / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICAL 2261227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OE INDIA 'FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. ‘,,/, I I @ Ti 1 5-9-2004 Shri Rajesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, GnvL Advocate for the State/ respondents N01 and 2, None for respondent N03. Heard both the counsel. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition underAnieie 226/227 of ‘ the Constitution of india, questioning the legality, proprietyrand correctness of the order dated 31.10.2002 passed by the Collectcr based 0n the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha on 5.10.2002. The case of the petitioner ls'th at he was working as Panchayat Karm in the Gram Panchayat: Nipani sinee 16.1996 and without following the i procedure as envisaged in the Chh and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinaft petitioner was removed from the pee 31.10.2002 passed by the Collector Sabha dated 5.10.2002; Return has been tiled on be also on behalf of respondent No.3. lt is an admitted position t Panchayat Karmi, Was removed by passed by respondent No.2 based 5.10.2002, whereas for removing a required to conduct an enquiry unde ? says that tier of the Panchayat Service, in clause (iv) to (via) of rule 5 ”No order, imposing on a m any of the penalties specir tisgarh Panchayat Service (Disciptine r referred to as the Rules, 1999’), the t of Panchayat Karmi vide order dated based on the resotution of the Gram f of respondents No.1 & 2iState and h the petitioner, who was Working as he impugned order dated 31.10.2002 n the Gram Sabha resolution dated y Panchayat Karmi respondents are the Rules, 1999. Sub-rule (1) of Rule h ? l XI-HC-ZZ shalf be passed except after a formal inquily is held as far as maybe, in the manner hereina tier pmvided. " Sub-ruie (2) of Ruie 7 envisages ihat ”When an arder for formal inquiry has been made, the discipiinary authoriiy shah‘ frame Demme charges on the basis of allegations and shall communicate such charges, along with the stafemeni of the allegations, to the member of the Panchayat Service and also require him to submit: within such time as may be speciiied a 'tten statement of defence and also to state whether he desi s to be heard in person.” Suh-Rules (3), (4), (5), (6), . (8),'(9), (10) and (11) of Rule 7 turther prescribe the procedure to b followed hefore imposing any major grenalty specifled in clause (iv) to (vi lt is also an admitted position at no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner before removing him f the, post of Panchayat Karmi as per Rule 7 of the Rules. 1999. Therefor , on this ground, the impugned order dated 31.10.2002 passed by the Col or is liable to be quashed. in the circumstances, the imp ned order is quashed. However. it is made clear thatrrthe respondents are not precluded from conducting fresh enquiry on the misconduct of the petit oner. With the above observation and direction. the petition stands disposedok Parties are entitled for certified copy of this order. BawelSoma n a . r t t