i •o -o :^ iV^ %- " f^. '^ i-fe-ff ffiS'B: "-W. *• t^^> :••' ^!::®, 6',. :P'L I 1.11 ®,pl^fl> 0* I-1" ^M^ »•••'',"©''] <sl'f-': fj'* Q. m- w lt*.'. ".w -&l£i8- :fga- !*r i oca-i Wffli fl'cl'.p) gu pt c<- i^a> 8-' O - -..11-» w ' w»o •^ g< p l4f &(?• <^.«+ni CT . .09 •» '^ ^SS. '-MQ {S' s.Ig s^s CfOtl. ^* (S' Y^,.\^ ;';' Bi» Hl>xio !B!rt i.^.^&'fe' •« » <<3 fll ^ . l^. <;cf{a fflCQh1-' f-t p t-f p:(»^ ^M sj^y" N a> 8 o< '..-,'g.g-g 4 c<- rt- ,NNj •p-p^ ."• 61 O P (jJQ c<-p et-\n^t w^S'S;®1 p) p) a-i» (M! H*@ fl> 4 OT fl f-i <a •u '.. ; @ 11) .&""'& (04 '•S i* "» - H-ta •- @*? 3 §fa' d* <n Q' o •i Q-) fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5476 of2005 PETITIONER : Tuklal Nayak. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. »• Present: Smt. Anju Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. Shri M.K.Bhaduri, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDERrORAL) (Passed on 20th day of January, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17.10.2005 (Annexure P/7) whereby the services ofthe petitioner from the post ofPanchayat Secretary (Kanni) has been terminated on the ,basis of resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat in its meetingon 16.10.2005: 2. The brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that (he petitioner was appoiiited on the post ofPachayat Kanni on 28.10.1995 and thereafter, was appointed as Panchayat Secretary. On account ofa peaceful rally held on 10.08.2005, the petitioner alongwith other employees were removed from service on the basis of resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. 3. Smt. Ahuja, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the mandatory, statutory provisions of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (/OT: short 'the Rules, ] 999') were not followed before removing the petitioner from the post ofPanchayat Kanni, thus, the impugned orderpassed by the Gram Panchayat on the basis ofresolution passed on 16.10.2005, is unsustainable in the eyes oflaw. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submit that admittedly, the provisions ofRule 7 ofthe Rules, 1995 has not been .fls-v. ": ^, ^^^^ ^ '^^.—-i.^ ^jj v,. '^ Amit -- followed in this case before passing the impugned termination order, which is mandatory. The petitioner could have been reffloved only after complying with the provisions ofRule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999. 5. Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties and having pemsed the pleadings and document appended thereto, it is evident that the impugned termmation order was passed wfthout 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 of the 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 of the principles of natural justice. It amounts to infraction of not only the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 but also the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution oflndia. The impugned order is in fact penal in nature, having civil consequences and as such compliance of the elaborate provisions, as enshrined in Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999 was mandatory in the present case. (See: Dhaluram Kosaria v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and Anjordas v. State ofChhattisgarh & Others2). 6. In view ofthe above, the impugned order dated 17.10.2005 (Annexure P/7) is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent auv 'orities to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, aflter following the provisions oflaw,as aforestated. 7. The writ petition is allowedto the above extent. No order asto costs. Sct/. satish^Agniftbtri j'udge '2006 (2)coui86 2-20080[II)MPJR-CG110