>8ffi r r»es.i?>i II'^.^i^ D^E'S^'I IN.THE HIOH-GOBRT OF CHHATTISGARH tS BILASPBR, •ufcinWiftfttfKrt V1iM*Wh'"«nill|lHaiitflltl^*tf)"<tWflflWI*1*h^.ruiW<lllllllftlr l -nii, rtrt(f)K rNNN^airWW^A iriiNtr)nhWt>N!NiiNflu.M4w>w-'*p«nwi• WRIT BETITION'NO.^^'b OP 2005. BiiiiiNjiilimtWN'f iiii>i.*»ni.iiw*t)i8*ffOit.ii;»niiKi)Bmtr—i'wiiK;w.-MutMB—Miinufctvitwiimiimif«w»t .U5^ SETTTIONER •n>ii«.'"fii>«a«'—ii iiniiir iiinimliiiiniii ^ Ramachandra Yadav , Son of Sri Manohar Yadav, aged about 28 years, working as a Panchayat Karnii ( Secret^Ey ). resident of village s Andari, Bosfe s Rajpur, Tehsil : Rajpur, District i Surguja ( C"G ). •rtflwidi ;NVIIMMM RESP0HDENTS ;«n«uii*iiiiitniiini(iiifli VERSOS: i • 1. ^^s ^s^^ ..*^:^:" '^^"" T^- 2. 3. Sta'te of Chhattisgarh through fehe Sgcretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Shavan, Raipur ( C.G ). The Collector, AmbiKapur, Distt s Surguja ( 'C.G. ) The Dy. Director, Panohayat 'and Social 'rielfare Depart- ment, AnbiKapur, - Disfct ; Surguja ( G G ). The Ghj.ef Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayafc, Rajpur, DIstrict s Surguja ( C G }. 5. The Sarpanch, Village Pan- chayat : Andari, Janpad ^^ Panchayat s RaJpur, Distt ; Surguja ( C O 5. (^<yi te'4'4 ^iRu:T PETITION UNDER ARTIGLES 226/227_OF_IIfi_^CWSTOTUTICT .osw^vmKW'IPiv w—MiiiBKWfr 111 11 i(iiini-»rl~'i—iTii'«rn"n^iBBii—riifir1 r' iiirin.ti—rtiNNfuniwin•iniiiiiii»i'«tt<*iB»u«li»u«id>iiiiiiurtii«ln'it>uuitii«rNi.ii^ii.rr]NM; ,'\ f-^ '';^ ^". ...f" ^?> a'l ••;•?' OF 'INDIA. .-.•..'.^' ;4^11.1.UH.I>^W«KlltlBdW<»)«*aiWIUl—Ki>UUI«IW: WS^WMWMWaWHKlt»^<^»lw»^»l'»W^lll»»'»W»»l»K'IV»»»HMItW»W*^^ 1. Parfciculars of the Petitioner; As mentioned above in the eause title. ~^^1 2. Particulars of tbe ReSpoRdents s NM^UaBIINhlt N•111111-I-1 hllllrtlrt il* <IIMNI Ld#»w^ifc^iiliB;Nfi<l:intfN*»W(u1»h:<lhnttraj-a»? tf'iril.ll| I'll III ,WMW As mentioned above in the cause title. ...2,/- "•~~**—l '—n«anBUiB,t_SS! '^^svsa^^^ HIGH COURT OF JUDIGATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR -•,-"• Singie Bench Hon'bleShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. :T! RESPONDENTS W.P.No. 6196 of 2005 Ramchandra Yadav Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others. Present : Shri V.K. Pandey, counse! for the petitioner. Shri Sushii Dubey, Govt. Adv. for the State / respondents No.1to3. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsei for respondent No.5. ORDER (2nd January,-2007) The petitionerwas appointed as Panchayat Karmi on 08-04-2005 (Annexure P/3). He was thereafter appointed as Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Amdari by order dated 15-06-2005 (Annexure P/4). Subsequently by order dated 30-08-2005 the appointment of. the petitloner as Panchayat Karmi (Secretary) was canceiled. The petitioner has impugned the said order dated 30-08-2005 in this writ petition on the ground that the impugned order canceling the appointment or the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi (Secretary) was passed without foiiowing the provisions enshrined in Ruie 7 of C.G. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short "the Rulss"). (2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Ru!e 7 provides for detailed procedure for imposing major penalties i.e. removal from seivice. According to the learned coynsel for the petitioner, cancellation of the appointment order tantamounts to removal from service and the same comes wit'nin the pun/iew of major penalty. :^<.-,:' —2-'- (3) Shrt Sushi! Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for the State / respondents No. 1 to 3 and Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, iearned counsel for respQhdent No. 5 submit that the appointment of the petitioner on the postof Panchayat Karmi was void a& toffioas the procedure prescribed for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi was not foliowed. (4) Be that as it may, the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi, thereafter he was appointed as Panchayat Secretaryand was psrmitted to work till 30-OS-2005 as Pahchayat Karmi (Secretary). It is notthecase ofthe respondents thatany show cause notice was issued to the petitioner or any procedure as prsscribed in Ruie 7 of the Rules was followed before the impugned orderwas passed. A Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 25-07-2006 passed in W.P. No. 1656 of 2004 and this Court in its order dated 15-11-2006 passed in W.P. No. 1850of 2001, have heid that Rule 7 of the Rules have to be followed in the case of termination of a Panchayat empioyee. (5) This Court in Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. State of C.G. & others, Beegan Ram Vs. Stateof C.G. & ofters and Piakash Chand Soni Vs. Stefe of C.G. & others held that the non compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of principles of riaturat justice tantamount to infraction of not only the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, but, the provisionsof Artide 311 (2) of the CSnstitution of India also. The order of removai being penal in nature, visiting with civit consequences, cannot be passed without hoiding the enquiry in accordance with the eiaborate provisions asprescribed in Rule 7 ofthe Ruies of 1999. (6) It is thus clear that the respondents have riot foilowed the statutory provisions of law before imposing the major penalty of remova! of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary. (7) For the reasons and the discussion made herein above and the dicta laid down by the Court in various cases (Supra), the order dated 10-08-2005 (Annexure P/2) is bad and is quashed. (8) On the question of back wages, no foundation has been taid to establish the fact that whether the petitioner was gainfuily employed elsewhere cr not during this period. Even otherwise keeping in view the fact that the termination order has been vitiated not on merit, but, on account of non-compiiance of the statutory provisions before terminating theservices ofthe petitloner, 50% backwages would be sufficient in the Jnterest of justice. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the respondents from initiating the proceedings against the petitioner, if they ars so advised, strictly ih accordance with law and in terms ofthe procedure prescribed in Rule 7 ofthe Rules. (9) Accordingiy, the wrjt petition is aliowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. ^—~ ~ SatishK.Agnifaotri I Judge 1. 2. 3. 2006(2)CGLJ186 2006 L.T. (C.G.) 41 2005 L.T.(C.G.) 151