Mf/pf/ 1N THE”E.¥.§H OQEigEWEE§£§§F£§§m£k§£v§w$§§¢l mk—mm WT.J_a§.w£§_ug.§mgimqy£\gxwm/‘zwé & PETE IONER N owMmu ww/k Ii, Gayaram Tandem gon of shri GmeShrarg Tandan ageé‘t ahaut 4.3 yea’rg, the than (secretary) pan ch aYat Kami Gram pan chaya‘t Ghuma , 1310C}; arid T ahSil Bil ha! Distt. Bil aspur (C.G. ). am s REspwDH-sgg My/L;CJ l. The Sgrpan Ch , Gram Paw-chayat Dimma, Block and TahEil Bilha Distt. Bilaspur (Cam). 2. Chief; Execu ti ve o fficer, Jampad panctla‘Ya‘t Bilha Distt. Elaspur (C. G. ). WRxTwgETITmN WggDER AmiQJE 2-27 OF mm goggwwwgx 0“ m DI an Ex F H IGH COURT OF CHHA'l—HSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) NO.3419 OF 2010 (Writ Petition under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Ram KumarTiwari, counsei forthe petitioner. Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 30‘“ day of March, 201 1) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 5-3—2010 (Annexure ~ P/1) passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, revenue case No.36/A-89(9)/ 2009—10 (Gayaram Tandan v. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dhuma & Another) by which the revision preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. The facts, in nutshell, for disposal of the case, are that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary on 25-11-1995. However, all of a sudden by order dated 11-10—2000 (Annexure — P/7) passed by the Sarpanch the petitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi without following the due process of law. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, which was rejected on 25—8-2009. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, which was also rejected by order dated 5—3-2010. Thus, this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no charge-sheet has been issued and no enquiry has been conducted before the impugned removal order was passed. The impugned PETITIONER Gayaram Tandan Versus RESPONDENTS The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dhuma & Another action was taken without complying with the mandatory provisions of Rule 7 of the Chhat’tisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, (for short ‘the Rules, 1999’). 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that admittedly, no enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 was conducted. However, show cause notice was served on the petitioner. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The question of law involved in this case is asto whether the petitioner, who was declared as Panchayat Secretary, can be removed from the post without complying with proper procedures as laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, Admittedly, as averred by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner wa removed without supplying the charge-sheet and without s conducting any enquiry. It is wen—settled principle of law as enshrined in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 that ‘if the Gram Panchayat proposes to remove a Panchayat Karmi including Panchayat Secretary, the same may be done in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat, before passing the impugned order has not complied with the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. This Court, in Dhaluram Kosaria v. State of CG and others1, observed as under: “19. lt is further admitted by all the parties that the procedure for holding an enquiry is prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 for imposition of major penalty, that has not been followed. Hence, the termination is bad and vitiated on the ground of non-compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of the principles of natural justice. lt amounts to infraction of not 1 2006 (2) CGLJ 186 only the provisions of Rule 7 of the ules 1999 but the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India also. The order is in fact penal in nature having civil consequences and as such the elaborate provision of Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 was applicable in the case of the petitioner before terminating his services." Further, in Beegam Ram v. State of CG and othersz, this Court observed as under: “7. With regard to exercise of power by the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions have laid down the principles of law that the High Court has jurisdiction and power to interfere if the Court is satisfied that the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings, clear ignorance and utter disregard of provisions of law and/or a grave injustice or gross violation of justice has occasioned thereby. In the present case, Revenue Authorities/Tribunals have completely ignored the statutory provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 and there is manifest error of the facts on the face of record, without requiring any investigation or enquiry. Admittedly, the alleged show cause notice dated 27.2.2000 (Annexure R/3)‘could not have been served through the Gudi Kotwarvon 24.02.2000, three days before the issue of show cause notice. No notice as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 was issued to the petitioner. Prior to submission of the enquiry report on 29.6.2000 (Annexure R/5), the Gram Panchayat resolved to remove the petitioner from his service on 18.05.2000 and pursuant thereof, order of the removal was passed on 30.05.2000 (Annexure P/3)" Non-compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of principles of natural justice tantamounts to infraction of not only the provisions or Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 but the provisions or Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India also. The order of removal being penal in nature, visiting with civil consequences, cannot be passed without holding enquiry in accordance with the elaborate provisions, as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. It is, ‘thus, clear that the ,j respondents have not followed the statutory provisions of Iaw before passing the impugned order; 2 2006 LT (co) 41 4 ® In view of foregoing, the impugned order dated 5-3-2010 (Annexure v —~ P/16) passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, the order dated 25-8-2009 (Annexure — P/15) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur and the order dated l 11-10—2000 (Annexure — P/7) passed by the Sarpanch, are quashed. 12. The petitioner is entitled to 30% back wages, having regard to the fact that the impugned order was passed long back and the ll respondent Gram Panchayat is not financially sound to give back wages, as pleaded by the counsel for the respondents. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to take fresh steps in accordance with Rule 7 of the / N Rules 1999, if so advised. \4 Sd/_ Satish K, Agnibotn'l Gowri Judge