SS9 & c^v^" XN Tffi HONOURABl£iaGH COHRT OF CHBiTIXsGABH AT BILASPUa. .-/• WRIT iSITOQKI HO. 1 ?^ OF 2005. ' ISTI'IIOffiR._s ^•\v<*-,0 Dataan Prasad S/0 Sbri Mannu Lal Joshi Agpd about- 35 years, R/0 Yillage- and Post- Office- Medesara, GraHi-Panchaya-fc-iVlec^ S'atasil Dbamdha ,D.2.stt« Durg (C«5»). ;; VE RSU S:S SSPOHI^NTS :-<$ 1. State of Chhattisgarh ^••'f,< ••"''A3ii</- Ihrough - 1- seeret&ry, ^v'^sy'.^ Panchayat and Ruler Develogaent y^s^AV^ /' Departaent , D.K.S. Bhawan, a.S, Hoada Raipur. '^-3 '••'^^ ^y^ / ^^ ..^.^ 4S^-;? <2-2. Collector,Durg. JESTITIQN UNESa ARTXclE 226/ Op CONS'riTUTION OF THE IN3IA- XI-HC-22 3^ -^ww^, atflti'is, [cj^iy^ idiSTsniifi 311^1 ^^vh ^..(^.•^...(f.2.4-. ra?"""""'""""Vwi; 2003, »?s a'n^TW R:iR;3:n^T sht| y(gfl •^'•^.••^'s'^-'- aii^i ^wiwgfN' 29-4-2005 On a mention being made, Mr. H.B. Agrowal, Senior Advocats for the petitioner. Mr. Sonjay Shyam Agrawa respondents. Heard both the counsel. TTie petitioner-'s case is th<^ vide order dated 29-11-1995 M Ponchayat: Medesara, on the fix per month. Without following Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service without conducting any enquiryl terminoited by respondent No.2 negligence in performance of Annexure P-2 be quoished. Opportunity to file reply the year 2003, but so far no f opportunity, on the request of weeks' time was allowed to file rel' filed. Therefore, ar'9uments wer^ Ttie <oi<<fo<fl-i >(i*i<iTff)WI'<Ri<^i< ^sri^q-sn^r matter is taken up for hearing Advocate with Mr. Pankaj , Soyernment Advocate for the State/ du it he was cypointed as Panchayat Karmi innexure P-1) by the Sar-panch, 6ram id honorarium at the rate of Rs.500/- the procedure as laid down in the ^iscipline and Appegl) Rules, 1999, and the petitioner's services have been Vide Annexure P-2 on the ground of ity. Therefore, the impugned order ^fos given to the State/respondents in teturn has been filed. Even as a last ^arned.Panel Lawyer on 5-5-2004, two Iturn. Even then also no retum has been heard. .^^--^^3-_-~ ^l©c,IOC(; XI-HC-22 3^ '<(!<< K-II, aTfltcis, Ridiy^< 371^ II*<MI ai*iich w-ra^ .co.^. ,!-{-rl :.)!..:. Q?\ y^. 200^ Ri*< SII^T^ f^iwsn^f ?b^I4) Wfff^tT ^: ^^i-y^-W^ :£W^S^S1- 311^1 S«t|igTflf?tT z- idb It is admitted position ti Karmi his services were governed (&iscipiine and Appeal) Rules, 19' not been conducted which is Annexure P-2 itseif. As has bee Prakash Chandra Patel vs. (W.P.No.594/2QQ3), order passe< a Panchayat Karmi which come^ envisaged in Rule 7 of the Rules the same has not been followed order is illegal, and the same is lit^ Mr. Sanjay Shyam Agrawc\ perusal of Annexure P-2 shows from the post of Panchayat Se^ from the post of Panchayat Ka entitied for anv relief. In reply, M.r. 'ri.B. Agraw^ that the petitioner has been renjf and he is not getting any saiary. endorsement No.3, learned Sen|c No.3, which has been made with r|< Medesara, is clear that for rem4! <»>i<<Tci<fl-i *iii<-iT^'teA^R?TC ^si^iran^r l^at the petitioner being a Panchayat t>y the Chhattisgarh Parichayat Seryice ]9, in respect of enquiry, and that has fcvident from the termination order ^n heid by this Court in the matter of ^tate of Chhattisgarh and others o" 15 Mcrch, 2004, before removing under major penalty, procedure as 1999, is required to be followed, and n this case. Therefore, the impugned ile to be quashed on this ground only. i, learned 6ovt. Adyocate argued that ft+iat the petitioner has been removed :retary and he has not been removed 'mi. Therefore, the petitioner is not I, learned Senior Advocate submitted ived from the post of Panchayat Karmi Drawing the attention of the Court on >r advocate argued that endorsement iference to Sarpmch, Sro.m Panchayat: yal of the petitioner from the post of XI-HC-22 3^ 'ifWW^, axfld'KS, Rlfllti^ t|l*1MI 9)»liq) 3ii^i ^iacft 5,.(.(7^ V^ 200^ .-$r STI^T^iT R-ii+sn^T SfiIlRi NiBfln '^e^^N^ soma '•^1 s» y 3n^T^<ffW;Bf?(T '< panchayat Karmi order be issued ^he. petitioner has been removed. Therefore, in the above cir< learned &ovt. Advocate Mr. Sai oundation. In the result, the petition s quashed. The respondents ar service with all consequential bene Consequently, M.(W.)P.No. stand disposed of. Parties are entitled for cerl <tii<il<'i41-f iwciTffte'Af.Rt+AK ^sri^ITSI'I^T fn accordance with law. Accordingly, umstances, the argument advanced by jay Shyam Agrawa! is without any fe allowed and the order Annexure P-2 directed to take the petitioner in Fits. 1057/2003 and I.A.No.2349/2004 ified copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo judge (<ft^y^)