yl: IN THE HIGHCOURT_QF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR Petitioner Respondents o^$> i^r r* T^T/^ ^noQ / r)Ftnc .l^V. UU^^ / ^,UVtJ w Versus Ram Vinod Singh S/o Shri Brij Nandan Singh, Aged about 35 years, R/o Village Katkona, Tehsil Baikuntpur, Dist: Korea-(C.G. 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Dist : Raipur-(C,G.) 2. Tlie Collector, Baikuntpur, Dist: Korea-(C.G.) 3. The S.D.O (Reveaue), Baikuntpur, Dist: Korea-fC.G.) 4. Gram Panchayat Katkona, Through its Sarpanch, Tehsil - Baikuntpur, Dist: Korea-fC.G.j The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baikuntpur, Dist : Korea- (C.G.) . WRIT PETITI_QN_UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^>F/? ~ ^\^Y E) <L HIGH COURT OF C! WRIT PETiTION N0.6022 OF 2005 PETiTiONER RESPONDENTS Ram Vinod Sinah Versus State of Chhattisasrh & Others 3. (Writ Petitlon under Articie 226/227 oftheConstitution of India) Sinflle Bench : Hon'ble Shri SaSish K. Aanihotri. J. Present:- Shri Arun Shukta, Advocate for the petttioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panei Lawyerforfhe Siate. None for other responpents. ORDER (ORAU (Passsd on thls 25"' day of February, 2010) 1. By this petitlon, the petitioner impugns the legality and validifr/ 6f the order dated 16-9-2005 (Annexyre - P/4) passed iby the Collector, Korea, Baikunthpur, in case No.7/8-121/2004-05 whereby the order dated 12-10-2004 (Annexure - P/3) psssed by the Sub Divlsional Officer (Revenue), Baikunthpur.District Korea in appeai No.02;' 3-121/2004-05 has been set aside and conrlrmed the removai order datsd 20-2-2004 (Annexure - P/2) passed by the S respect ofthe petitioner. The facts, in nutsheli, for disposai of the case, are that the petitionsr was appointed as Psnchayat Karmi on 25-10-1M5. Al! of.a sudaen by order dated 20-2-2004 (Annexure - P/2) passed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Katkona, the petitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi without foilowing the due proeess of law. teing aggrievecj by the removal'order, the petitionar preferred an appeal berore the Sub Divisiona! Officer (Revenue), Baikunthpur, District Korea, which was aliowed by order dated 12-10-2004. "hereaaainst. the Saroanch. Gram Panchavat. Katkona, filed a case before the Coilector. Korsa. 'Bajkunthpur. The Coitector bv the impugned order dated 16-S-2005 while atlowing the case. of the Sarpanch.set assde the order 12-10-2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Offjcer (Revenue), Baikunthpur, Distric-t Korea on the iround ofwant ofjurisdiction. Thus, this petjtion. Learned counsei appearing for the petitlonsr would submit that since ths mandatory, statutofy provisions of Ru!e 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Disctplsne and Appea!) Ruies, 1999, (for short 'the Rules, 1999') were not Tollowed before removing the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi, the impugned remova! order was iilegal and bad on the around that the petitioner was not afforded anv opportunity of hearing. To Suttress his submjssion, learned counssi appearing for the pet'rtioner cited the decisions of this Court rendered sn Raj Kumar v. State of Chhattlsgarh and Qthers1, Dhaiuram Kosaria v. State ofC.Q. & others"', which was reiied on in Anjordas ".StateofChhattisgarh&others. , have fteard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pteadings and the documents appended Ruie 7 of the Ruies, 1999 provides for procedure before terminating service of a member of Panchayat. In the instant case, it is apparent that the said provssions were not foiiowed, no defjnite charges were framed and the petitioner was not served with the ststements of charges before holdlng an enquiry, leadjng to term'ination of the Detitioner from his sen/ices and in fact neittier the show cause notice was issued nor the enquirv was held. Thus. the imougned order of remova! is unsustainabie. !t is evident that the impugned removal order v/as passed without foliowina- the statutory and prescribed under Ruie 7 of mandatory procedure of tew, as ie Rules, 1999. The procedure for -1 WP No. 1 &50 of 2001 (aecicied on 15-11-2006; 2 {2006(2) C.G.LJ. 186} 3 nnna';i;i\ rn it-> i^?-. <'. {2008 (iti)MPJR-CG 110? f !i ' ! 10. 11 3^ holdlng an.enquiry is enshrined m Rule 7 of the Ruies, 1999 for imposition of major penalty. Hence, the iround of non-comDiiance of deniai of the principies of naturai justice. it amounts to infraction of not on!y the provisions of Ruie 7 of the Ruies, 1999 but aiso the prcwislons of Articie 311(2) of the Constitution of india. The order was in fact penai in nature, having civil consequences and as such compliance of the eiaborate orovisions, as enshrined in Ru!e 7 of the Rules 1999 was mandatow in the present case. {See Raj Kumar (supra), Dhaiuram Kosaria (supra) and Against the decision rendered by this the Gram Panchayat, Hardi, preferrad Spec' No.2365 of & Ors.) before the Supreme Court, withdrawn on 15-1-2010. ordas (supra)}. in Raj Kumar (supra), Leave to Appeai (Civil) State of Chhttisaarh lich was dismissed as For the reasons mentioned heresnabove that ths petitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi in .an arbitrary manner, withouf foilowing the principles of natural justice and further without foilowing the statutory procedure, the petitioner remained out of job fora iong period and according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has suffered great financial loss, thus.grant of 30% backwages wouid sub-sewe the interest ofjustice. Resultantly, the writ petltion is aiiowed with afore-siated. The impugned orders dated 20-2- P/2) and 16-9-2005 (Annexure - P/4) are aside. However, t espondents are at liberty to initiate disciplinary action against t! petitioneri sf so advissd, |n accordance ' procedure prescribed in Rule 7 ofthe Ru 'here s'nai! be no order astocosts. law and IR terms'of the Sd/- SatishK. Judge