€• Si,^ ww'ss IN THEmGHCQURT OF JUDIGATURE AT BILASPUR WRITPETITIONNO. ^/0& /2005 SINGLE BENCH PETmONER Jeet Ram Kun-e, S/o Shri Ram Prasad Kuire, aged about 35 years, R/o Chandai, Tahsil-Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS ^ w ^ /^ /^ / ^/ <^ 1. StateofChhattisgarhthrough theSecretaTy,Panchayat&Social Wel&re Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Deputy Director, Panchayat & SocialWel&Te, Distriet Raigarh (C.G.) 3. ChiefExecutive OfBeer, Janpad Panchayat,Sarangarh,District Raigarh(C.G.) 4. Gram Panc)iayat Chandai through itsSarpanch,Chandai,Tahsil- Sarangaili, District Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Sarpanch, GramPanchayat Chandai, Tahsil-Siuaiga'h, District Raigarh (C.G.) 6, ShriBhojramChouhan,Assistant Gram Pancha^t OfBcer, Gram Panehayat Chandai, Tahsil- Sarangaih, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT UNDE]ELARTICI£226^270F THE CONSTFTUTION @F DWIA FOR ISSUANCEOE ASUTDSLEWRIT. ORDERS ORDIRECTION Tlie above named petitioner most humbly and respectfiilly begs to submit -"^asunder: - 'T^y 1. PARTICUIAI^ OF THBPETTTIONERfS): As pWthecaUsetitle. 2. PARnCULARSOFTHERESPONDENHS'): As perthecausetitle. f\^l\ HIGHCOURTOFCHHATnSGARHATBILASHJR Writ Ptetition No.2106/2005 Ftetitioner Respoadents Jeet Ram Kune -Vcrsus- StateofChhattisgaA & othcra +*. POst &r oider on '^ Novembcr, 30W Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri ^—Judge ^,. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSQARH : BILASPUR Writ PetitionNo.2106/2005 Pfetitioner : Jcet Ram Kurre -Versus- Respondcnte : Statc ofCUiattisgaA&ofhers Shri Rsgeev Shnvasteya, Advocafe for (he petitioiier.~ Shri V. V. S. Moorthy, Depu<y Advocate Gencial for the respoxidents No. 1 and 2. Shri Saiideep Dubey, Advocate for the respondent No. 4 and 5. Noxie for (hc icspondents No. 3 and 6. ORDBR f*- (Itf November, 2006) This oider of fhe Court is passed by Justtee Battoh K. A^ifliotri. 1. Thc petitmner, in the prcsent petititon, iinpi^iis the oider dated 19.4.2005 (Aanexure P/12) passed by fhe resp>ndeat No.2 wheieby the respondent No.6 was appoiated as Secretaiy in place offhe petitioner undcr the piovisfe>as ofScction 69(1) offhe Chhattfsgarh Panchayat Rsg Adluniyam, 1993 (for ahort 'the Act 1993^ and the orderdatcd 25.4.2005 (Anaexme P/13) passed by the icspondent No.5 termmatii^ the service of fhe petitioner J5om the post of Paachqrat Kanni fi»m Gram Panchayat Chandia. 2. Tbe facts in nutsheB are fhat the petitfoner was appointed aa Panchayat Karml 6f Giaun Panchayat, Chandia vide ordcr dated 15.11.1995 (Anncxure P/l) m accotdance wifh tew. Subsequentty vide order dated 19. 12.19% (Annexure :P/2) tfae petitioner was declarcd as Sccretary under (he ftxwisions of Section 69 (1) offheAct, 1993. The petitfonerwas handed oiver tt isaiB w m l^ ttie charge offhe post of Secnstary oa 20.12.1995. Thc Gram Sabha ia ite t?esolutk»ndated 18.2.2005 resotoed to reinove fhe petitioncr fi»infhe posto{PaBcbayat KaEini aad reinoval lctter was accoEdingty issued on %.2.20®. On 28.2.2005 fhe respondent No.2 appointed Sin Firtu Raa. Barefh as Secretary offhe Gram Panchayat On tfae represeatation. dated 3.3.2005 (Annexure P/5) made by fbc petitioner, fhe respondent No.2 diiiected the PeaicTwyat and Social Organizer to conduct intemal enquiiy and subnut a report. On receipt of an intemfll report dated 19.3.3005 pf fhc PaDcbayat and Social Ediication Organizer, fhe respondent No.2 quashed fhe ordcr dated 25.2.30(®removing the semce of fte petitioDca- fiTom the pQstofPanchayat Kaniuand altowed the petitfonerto perform. h-is dutfes as Panchayat Kannl. Pursiiant to the OTScr dated 4.4.2tx)5 passed by fhe respondent No.2 fhe petitioncr joined on fhe post of Pmicheyat Kannu on 7.4.20(®. The respondent No.2 appointed fhe respondent No.6 sea Sccietary ofGram Pan.chayat uiulcr fhe ptovfafa»tisafSwtmn 69 (1) ofthc Act, 1993 vMe ordcr dated 19.4.2TO5 (Annexure P/12) which is impugncd herein also. Being ^gricved, fhc peti.tioner chaUenged the ValKlity of fhe order dated 19.4.2005 separatety in W.P.No. 1931/2005 also. Shri Rajeev Shrivastova, icsmaed counsel ^pcaring for the petitioner chaBenged fhe yaMdity offhe otder dated 25.4.2005 whcreby fhe petitioncr was reinovcd fixrm the post of Pascbay&t Kanni on the sote giound fhat the impugned oixter was not passed in aceoidancc with fhe statutoiy prcwisions as prescribed in Rute 7 of fhe Madliya Praiesh ISeWice tetl '4- (Diseiplme aad Appeal) Rutes, 1999 (&r sbort " Rutes, 1999"). Tfae respondents No. 4 airi. 5 have laot ccaiducted any eiiquiry as cnvi^iged in Rule 7 of the Rutes 1999. Thus, the petition deserved to be aBdwcd with cost 5. Shri Saadecp Dubey, leamed counscl appearing ft)r QSK respondents No. 4 and 5, on the coutraiy, submits fhat (he petitibn is not igfrintamable on fhe ground ofayaflabiHty ofthe altemative reinedy. Secondty the principles of natuial jiistfce as envisagcd iu Rute 7 of flic Rules 1999 has becn coniplied wifh by issuing a show causc notice to fhc pctitioner wluch has been duty replied to by thc petitioiier. Retum of the respondents No. 4 and 5 reads as iinder:- 'Aflcr receipt of fhe coniplaiats show cause notice wcre issued to the pctitioner and h®has submitted icturu which is annexed herewifh R-5/2 airi fhcTeafter a nieetmg ofGraia Sabha was caBed and a icsolutton has been passed wifh fuU majcM-ity aaul after fhe resolutton is passcd fhe petittoner faas been renioved, copy pf aesolution is annexed hcrewifh. Annescure 5^3 which fa perfecfty fegal aad justifed and IK> malafidc can bc attributed against fhc answcmn^ respondent* 6. ShriV. V. S. Moorfhy, Deputy Advocatc General appearingfor fhe respondents No. 1 and 2 adopts fhe stibatissK>n of teamed counsel for fhe respondents No. 4 and 5. 7. The respondents No. 3 and 6 did not appear despite duie senrice on fhcna. 8. After Iiearing teamed coiuisd for fhe pquties and pCrusii^ the records appendcd to the petition as also to the rctum. It is feund fhat fhe Buaadatory requiremcat ofRute 7 offhc Rules, J; il!ll ./-"";'• r\. 1999 has not been oomplied wlth. The Grani PanGhsyat has renioved fhc petitioner wiffiout conducting (he formal enquuy after fi»mjngfhc defiiute chargcs on fhe basis offhe aDegation aad conunuaieatu^ ttiercafter such charges and steteniente to the petitioner as ptescribed inSub-Rule (2) offheRute 7 offhe Rutes, 1999. Rute 7 offhe Rutes, 1999 reads as muler;- "7. Procednre fp»impoadngmajor penaltle».-(l)No ord«-, naposing on a mciabcr ofthe Paiichayat Semce, any of fhe penalties specified in clause (iv) to (vi^ of rvQe 5 ahaU be passed exccpt after a fonnal iaquiiy is held as far as may be, ia the manner hercmafter piovided. (2) Wlien an order for fornaal inquiry has been madc, fhe discqilinaiy aufhority shatt fiamc Dcfiirite chaiges on ttie basis ofanegatioas suad shaU comunuucate sw;h chaiges, alongwith the stateiaent of fhe allcgatfons, to the Hiexn'her of the Paachayat Semcc and also requice hua to submit, wMiin sucli tiaae eis inay be specified a written stateDaent of dcfence and also to state whefher hc desires to bc hcard inpeison. (3) The person against whona. inquiry is lio bc heU shafl, fer the purpose ofpreparing toe defenGe.be pcnnteted to inspcct. aDd takc extracts finoia such records as he may specify: Provided that such permission may be refusal if, for reasons to be recordcd in writiDg, in the opinion ofthe Eaquuy Officer such records are not relevant for fhe purpose or it is against fhe public uitocstto aUow his access thereto. (4)0a receiptof fhe wntten stateineat ofdefence or ifany such statement is not iweised withm the tuae specifcd, the discq»linary authonly may himself cnqujre into Such of thc cliarges as are not admitted pr appoint an. EnqiMry OfiGcer to hold fhe inquiiy and foiward to hiin his report and, tfadnsetl, his recoinmendation sfltoiigwith all fhe inquiiy pEg)ci's. (S) The disciptiaaiy authorily inay aommate any peison to present fhc case in support ofthe charges befote' the Eaquuy Officer. The naemberoffhe PanehayatServicemaypresenthis case with the assistaaee of any ofher PancU^at ^avaat of ^. State Govenunent Servant appioyed by'tfae Enquiry OflGcer but may notengage a le^ practitioner for thc purpose, unlessthc person nominated by fhe disciplinary aufhonly as aforesaid is a tegal piactitioner or untess fhc disGqilinaiy aufhority having le^id to the cacunistaDces ofthe casc so pennits. (6) If fhe servant of the Panchayat SerwGe desires to be heard in peraou, fic shaU be so heard. Ifhe so desires or iffhe discipUnary aufhotity s6 diiBcts, aa oral enquiry ShaU be hcM by thc Enquity Offteer. At such inquiry evidcacc stiaffl be heaid ^ to such offheaBegationsasare not adxnitted and fhe person chaiged shaU bc entided to cross examine the witi»ss, to give evMcnce ui,person, to pnxluce documcntaiy evideacc, ifauy, and to have suchwitness caBrii as he naay wish: Rrovided that fhe Enquiry OfBcer may, fbr reasons to be recordcd i(i writing, refuse to cafl a witness. (7) At fhe conclusion of the iaquiry, fhe Etiqua-y Officer shatt prcpaie a report offhe inquiiy, recordiiig his findings on each offhe chai^es together wifh reasons ffaerAforc. (8) Thc proceedings €»nduotedagajnst fh.c pMsons cliaiyd shaU contain asufflcicnt rccord of 0 fhe charges fiamal ^ainst snch person and the statcnient ofaUegations; (iQ fhe written stotenaent ofdefence if aay; fhe oral evideiK-e taken in flie course of flie inquuy; the docuruentary evBlence considered in tfae coursc offhcinqttny; fhe orders, ifany, madc by tte Enquiiy Officcr or the discipUnaiy aufhorily as the case niay be with regard to fhe iaquny; a report setting out thc findmgs on cach ehai^e and the reasons fherefore. (9) fhe Enquiry OfBccr, ifhe te ofher than fhe discipMnaiy authority, shaB submit fhe reGords of flic procceduigs ineatioaed in clause (8) above to fhe'diseiplinary atitfaoritf without recommendatkin relating to the penaltjn to be imposed. The disciplmaiy aufhorrty shaB GOasitler fhe (iv) (V) (vi) '^: 9. recoid of the enquiry aad its findings on each charge, having regaaxl to the findings on the cbaa^es and the recoiri (iffhe procecdings) ifheis of the opmion that any of fhe peaaltiea specified in clauses (iv) to (vi^ of rulc 5 shouM be unposed, it shaB fumish to the person cbarged a copy of fhc report offhe Euquiry Officer;and where the disciplinaiy aufhority is not the Enquiry OflBcer a Statemcnt of its findings together with brief reasons fcr dis^reement, if any, with fhe findings oftbe Enquuy OflScer. (10) The disciplmaiy authorily shall consider fhe representatron, if any, made by the pcrson chai^ed in response to the noticc and determine the peiialty, if any, shouM be imposed and shaU pass appropriate oxder on fhe case. (11) Thc orders passed by fhe disciptmaiy sai-Qwrity shaU be conununicated to the niember &f fhe Panchayat Seiyice, who shaU also be supplied with a copy of fhe report 6f fhe Enquiiy OfBcer an where, discipliaaiy aufhonty is not the Enquiiy OfiEcer, a stateinent Of its findings togefhcr with fhe brief reasons for disagreenieat, if any, with the findmgs of thc Enquiiy Officer, unless fhey have alaealy been supplied to fhe person charged." The Supreme Court in fhe case ofRtulhey ahyam Gnpta Vs. V. P. State Agro Industries Corporatioa Itd. and another {(1999) 2 SCG 21} has observed in para 34, as undcr:- "34. But in cases whcre the teniunation is preceded by an cnquiiy aad evidence is received aod findii^s as to miscouduct of a defmltwe iiature are arrived at behind the back oftheofBcer aud where on thc basis of such a report, the teruuDation order . is issued, such aa order will be violative ofthe principfcs ofnaturaljustice inasinuch as the purpose of fhe enquiry is to fmd out the trufh of the aBegations wifh a view to punish him and not meiely to gather evidence for a future regular departm.en.tal eaquuy. la such cases, fhc tenamation is to be. trcated as based or fouaded upon misconduct andwfllbe puiB.tivc." - 10. This Court m Dhalia-am Kosarta Vs. State ofC.G.tteother» { 2006 (2) COLJ 186 }, BeeaEaa Ram Vs. State of C.G. & othws { 2006 L.T. (C.G.) 41}, and Prakasli caiaad Sonl Vs. State of C.O. & others { 2005 L.T. (C.O.) 151 } heM tttat tfae uon compliance of fhe statutory prowtsions and denial of pnnciples of iiatural justice tantamount to infi-action of not onfy fhe provisaans of Rule 7 of fhe Rule 1999 but the provteions ofArticte 311(2) of fhe Constitiition of India also. The order of reinoval being penal in nature, visiting wifh chril consequeiiccs, csmnot be passed wifhout Iioldmg fhe enquiry in accotxlance with fhe elaborate provisions as prescnbed in Rule 7 offhe Rules, 1999. 11. It is fhus clear fh.at fhe respondents No. 4 and 5 have not foUowed fhe statutory provisions of law bcfore imposmg the major penal^ of Femoval of fhe petitfoner fi-oin fhe post of Pancfaayat Kanni. 12. With regard to fhe 'availabflity of fhe altemative remedy it is weU settted that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availabflily of an altemative reinedy te a rule of discretion and aot one of fhe compulsion. In fhe prescnt case the facts are not disputed. The entire caae rests on the infiaetion of constitutioaal profection prescribed uader ATlicte 311 (2) of fhe Constitution of India and non-application of fhe statutory proviskins, as such fhe alteniative remedy niay not be a proper forum. The Supreme Gourt ja fhe CESC ofHarbandal Stdinla M Eil ^/i and another Vs. Indian OU CoiporaUon lAd and otlters {(2003) 2 SCC 107} inpara 7 has held as under:- "7. ........sufl5.ee it to observe fhat the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by avaDabflily of an attemative remedy is a rule of discEetion and not one of coiapulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability ofthe altemative rexnedy, the High Court inay stiU exereise its writ jiirisdiction in at least fhree Gontingencies: (i) where the writ petitron seeks eHforcement of any of fhe ftmdamental rights; (ii) where there fa faflure of principlcs of natural justice; or (m) where fhe orders or proccedmgs are wholfy wifhout jurisdrction of fhe vires of an Act is chaUengcd............." 13. The Supreme Court m State of H.P. and others Vs. Cin^urat Amliuja Cement Ltd. and another ((2005) 6 S.C.C. 499), iu para22heldasunder.- . "22. If, as was noted in Ram aad Shyain Co. v. State of Haryana31 the appeal is .firein "Caesar to Caesar's Wife" fhe existence of altemative reinedy would be a nurage and aa cxercise in futility. In fhe instant case fhe writ petitioners had indicated the reasons as to why they thought fhat fhe altemative reinedy would not be efGcacious. Though the High Court did not ff> into fhat plea relating to bias in deteul, yet it felt fhat altematiye remedy woiild not be a toar to entertaia fhe writ petition. Sincc fhe High Court has elsiboratefy dealt with the question as to why fhe stetutoiy remedy avaOable was not efficaciDus, if wouM not be pioper for thfa Court to considcr fhe questmn again. When fhc High Court had entertaiaed a writ pctition. notwifhstandJDg existerice of an altematiwe rcmedy fhis Coiut while dealing with fhe matter inian appeal should not pennit the questmn to be raised unless the High Courts reasoning for entertainn^ fhe Wrtt petition. is fonnd to be palpably unsound aad iErational. Sumlar view was i:;i r 14. 15. 16 expressed by tfais Court in I«*iistrfO v. Short Bros. (P) Ltd.32 andState ofU.P. v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.33 TBatbemg fhe positiou, we do not consider the High Courfs judgnaent to be vulnerable on the ground fhat altemative remedy was not availed. There are tWo'well-recognized exceptions to fhe doctrine ofexfaaustion of statutoiy reincdies. Pirst is when tihe proceedings are taken before the forum luudcr a provision of law which is ultra vires, it is open to a party aggrieved thereby to move the High Court fbr quashing fhe proceedings on the ground that thcy are. niconipetcnt wifhout a party bcin^ obl^ed to wait untU fhDse proceedings run fheir ftifl course. Secondfy, the doctrfne has uo application. when the impugned ordcr has been inadc in violation of the principles of iiatural justice. We inay add fhat where fhe proceedings itself are aa abuse of process of law fhe High Court in an appropriate case can entertain a writ petition." In view of fhe setfled pruiciples of law on fhe availabiBty of altemative reinedy as laid down by fhe Supreaae Court in fhc above cited cases (supra) fhis petition camnot be dismissed on fhat ground. The question ofvalidity ofthc im.pugncd orier dated 19.4.2005 caiuiot bc exauiined in fhis case as the vaUdity of the said order is under consideration in a writ petition No. 1931/2005 fltled by fhe petitioner. Thus, this Court does tu>t express any opnuoa on fhe vaUdity of the onler dated 19.4.2005 whfch is subject matter ofthe writ petition No. 1931/2005. For the reasons and the discusstons made herein above and the dicta laid down by fhe Supreme COiirt ia various cases (supr^ thc order of reinoval dated 25.4.3005 fa bad aad is quashed. 17. 18. On the questionofbackwages, no foiindatiDn has been laid to estabUsh fhe fact fhat whefher fhe petitioner was gamiuUy einplQyed eteewlicre or not diuring this period. Even ofherwise keeping in view fhat fhc tenninatton oider has beca vitiated not on inerit but on account of non-coiuplMnce of fhe statutoiy provisions before tcrminating the seiyices of fhe petitioiier, 30% back wages woutd be siifScient in the interest ofjustice. The Uberty is reserved to the respondents No. 4 aad 5 to mitiate dc novo enqiiuy on fhe aBeged irregularities, ifso advised. The writ petitiou is parUy altowed to the above extent No order as to costs. Sd/- SafehK.Agnihotri Thakur