f. <f<lo<? mw IV? BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. •^^TU7/2005 PETITIONER ~.~^. 0\'^^-^" -.Mf>-" ^ ^y^^y-' ' 'y>'"..^<o}>'" 0<?y ^," ^' RESPONDENTS ^ Satrughan lal Doundey, Son of Shri Ram Bagh aged 31 years, R/o. Nawagaon Khurd, Block-Sahaspur, Lohara, Tah. & Distt. Kawardha. VERSUS '^" ^- State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Gram Panchayat and Social Deptt. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. Collector (Panchayat) Kawardha (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad .Panchayat, Sahaspur Lohara, distt. Kawardha (C.G.) Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Nawagaon Khurd, Tah. Sahaspur Lohara, Distt. Kawardha (C.G.). ^^•»'1*» •^ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH : SILASPUR PETi'TiONER RESPONDENTS WRIT_PETiTiQN,N0.4777_OF2005 Satrughan Lal Doundey Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others OA/rit Petition under Artscle 226 of the Constitution of india) SlngieSench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnlhotri, J» Present:- Shri Ajay Shriv'astava, counsei for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govl. Advocate for the State. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, counsei for the respondent No.4. QRDER ('ORAU (Passed on thjs 1st day of February. 2010) 1. By thls petitlon, the petitioner seeks to chaSienge the legalsty and vaiidity of the order dated 21-6-2000 (Annexure - P/1) Passed by the Deputy CoSlector, Kawardha, 17-4-2000 (Annexure - P/2) resoSutlors passed by the Gram Panchayat and the order dated 21-6-2000 (Annexure - P/5) passed by the Chief' Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lohara, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi. 2. The facts, in nutsheil, for' dlsposai of the case, are that the petltioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretai'y on 4-12-1995. On the basis of compiaints received from the viliagers by order dated 21-6-2000 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Deputy CoSiector, Kawardha, the petitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Karml -wlthout following the due process of law. Thus, this petition. 3. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submlts that no charge-sheet has been issued and no enquiry has been conducted ^^T^r 7. 8. ^z before the impugned removal order was passed. The Impugned adion was taken wlthout co'mpiylng with the mandatory provlsions of Ruie 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeai) Ruies, 1999, (forshort'the Ruies, 1999') Learned counsel appearing for the State subniits that admlttedly, no enquiry as envisaged ynder Ryie 7 of the Ruies, 1999 conducted. However, show cause notice was sen/ed on the petitioner. I have heard iearned counsel appearing. for the parties, perused the pieadingsand the documients appended thereto. The question of Saw involved in this case Is asto whether ttie petitloner, who was dedared as Panchayat Secretary, can be removed from the post without complylng witti proper procedures as iaid down in Rule 7 of the Ruies, 1999. Admittediy, as avarred by Searned counse! appearing for the petitloner that the petitioner was removed wlthout suppjying the • charge-sheet. and wlthout conducting any enquiry. It is vvell-ssttJed principle of iaw as enshrined in Rule 7 of the RuSes, 1999.that ifthe Gram Panchayat proposes to remove a-Panchayat Karmi Induding Pa'nchayat Secretary, the same may be done in accordance with the Drocedure Drescribed in Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999. Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat, before passing the impugned order has not compSled wlth the provisions of Ruie 7 of theRuies,1999. This C-ourt, In Dhsfuram Kosana v. Stats of CG ssnd others', observed as under: ' 2006 (2) CGU 186 ,^^^--- ..<s\ "19. it is further admitted by ail the parties that the procedure for holdjng an enqulry is prescrlbed under Rule 7 of the Ruies 1999 for irrsposltion of major penatty, that has not been 'fo!iowad» Hence, the terrriination is bacj and vitiated cn the ground of non-compiiance of the statutory provlsions and denla! ofthe principles .of natural justlce. It amounts to infraction of not oniy the provisions of Rute 7 of the Ruies 1999 but the provisions of Articie 311 (2) of the Constitution of india also. The order is in fact pena! In nature having civil consequences and as such the e!aborat©provjslon of Rut@ 7 of the Ruies 1999 was appiicabie in the case of the petitioner before termlnating his semces." 9. Further, in Bssgam Rsm v. State of CG and oHTer/, th'ss Court obser^ed as under: 1 10. '7. .Wlth regard to exercise of power by the High Court under •Articie 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'bSe Suprem® Court in caiena of decislons have laid down ttie prlncipies of law that the High Coyrt has jyrisdiction and power to interfere if the Court is satjsfjod thaf the error js manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings, ciear ignorance and'utter dlsregard of.provislons of law and/or a grave injustice or gross vioiation of Justice has occasioned thereby. Jn the present case, Revenue Authorities.rTribun.als have completely ignored the statutory provjsions of RuSe 7 of the RuSes, 1999 and there is manlfest error of the facts on the face of record, without requiring any Investlgation or enquiiy. AdmittedJy, the alteged show cause notice dated 27.22000 (Annexure R/3) couid not have been served through the Gudi Kotwar on 24.02.2000, three days before the issue of show cause notice. No notice as contempiated under Rule 7 of the Ry!es 1999 was issued to the petitloner. Prior to submission of the enquiry report on 29.6.2000 (Annexure R15), the Gram Panchayat resotved to remove the petltioner from his service on 18.052000 and pyrsuant thereof, order of the removal was passed on 30.05.2000 (Annexure P/3)" Non-compiiance of the statutory provisions and denial of principles of natural justice tantamounts to infraction of not onSy the provisions 2006 LT (CG) 41 4 II %^^:y'^ i 'i ^ "^f".^' ^^^' J ?'^. of Rute 7 of th©Rutes, 1999 but the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constltution of india aiso. The order of removal being penal in nature, vlsiting with civil consequences, cannot be passed without holding enquiry in accordance with the elaborate provlsions; as orescribed in Ruie 7 of the Rules, 1999. it Is, thus, ciear that the respondents have not foilowed the statutory provisions of iaw before passing the impugned order. 11. in vlew of foregoing, the impugned order dated 21-6-2000 (Annexure - P/1) Passed by the Deputy Coiiector, Kawardha, 17-4-2000 (Annexure - P/2) resolution passed by ths Gram Panchayat and the order dated 21-6-2000 (Annexure - P/5) passed • by 'the Chief Executlve Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lohara, are quashed. 12. As far as grant of backwages is concerned, the petitioner is not entitied to any backwages, as ttie pstitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi on 21-6-2000 and has preferred the present writ petitlon on 1.9-9-2005. 13. Accordingly, the writ petltion Is ailowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. However, the respondent authorities are at ilberty to take fresh steps in accordance with Ruie 7 of the Rules 1999, Ifso advised^ Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge