"7 ff^t^- IN THE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. ^~3c /2003 /: i PANCHRAM PAL SON OF SHRI ANANDRAM PAL AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUTELIDHURD, BLOCK CHHUI KHADAN DISTT. RAJNANDGAON (CG) / PETITIONER vs. l.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH THE SECRETARY, ^. MESTISTRY OF PANCHAYAT, ^ D.K.S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT RAJNANDGAON y^^9 ..•y'"\:w-'i'" ..^ ^\^^^2^-'**r ;.^.^; »•* RESPONDENTS (4v-l WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 22^227 QF THE ^' o 1^~ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^ __ T^-A-JQrCIX^LT_TT-—A-X^£<<- T ^^ ••% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION No. 2530 of 2003 : PanchramPal ^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri V.K.Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri/Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 01st day ofMarch, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 27.05.2003 (Annexure P/4), whereby appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Kutelikhurd, Janpad Panchayat Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, has been cancelled. Shri Pandey, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayt Secretary, Kutelikhurd by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 01.04.2002 (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, the petitioner was discharging his duties with all sincerity. All of a sudden, vide the impugned order dated 27.05.2003 (Annexure P/4), the appointment ofthe petitioner was cancelled without following the mandatory, statutory provisions of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short 'the Rules, 1999'). Thus, the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Shri Pandey next submits that ,.^.^ /•1 ..4: after removal from the post of Panchayat Secretary, the petitioner has been discontinued from the post ofPanchayat Karmi, also. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submit that admittedly, the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, which is mandatory, has not been followed in this case before passing the impugned cancellation order. The petitioner could have been removed only after complying with the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the pleadings and document appended thereto, it is evident that the impugned termination order was passed without following the proper procedure of law, as prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. The procedure for holding an enquiry is prescribed under Rule 7 ofthe Rules/1999 for imposition of a major penalty. Hence, the termination is bad and vitiated on the ground of on- compliance ofthe statutory provisions and denial ofthe principles of natural justice. It amounts to infraction of not only the provisions ofRule 7 oftheRules, 1999 but also the provisions of Article 311(2) ofthe Constitution oflndia. The impugned order is in fact penal in nature, having civil consequences and as such complianee ofthe elaborate provisions, as enshrined in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 was mandatory in the present case. (See: Dhaluram Kosaria v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and Anjordas v. State ofChhattisgarh & Others2). ^ ' 2006(2)cou 186 2 2008 (III)MPJR-CG 110 -"^" b"y\ 6. A Division Bench of this Court, in Rooplal Nayak v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others3, in a similar facts and circumstances, quashed the order of the Collector, Rajnandgaon, whereby the petitioner, working as Panchayat Secretary, was removed from the post of Panchayat Secretary holding that such penalty cannot be imposed on a member ofPanchayat Ser^ice without conducting a regular deparfmental enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts ofthe case on hand, where the respondent No. 2 has cancelled the appointment ofthe petitioneron the post ofPanchayat Secretary without following the statutory procedure as prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, the impugned order dated 27.05.2003 (Annexure P/4) is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to all the consequences. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit W.P. No. 1656/2004, decided on 25.07.2006