^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG^RH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO.^-^^8 /2003. PETITIONER Lochan Prasad Patel,.son of Shri Hemlal Patel (Marar), aged about 30 years, occupation Panchayat Karmi (Sachiv), Gram Panchayat Bagchawa, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPO^ENTS z^- ^ •••' ^^ ^y ..••' / y^ e^J / '^y 4. \ ^- State of Chhattisg^rh, through Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Tahsi1 Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Deputy Director, Gram Panchayat and Rural Development, Social Welfare, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Gharghora, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha Bagchawa, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), through : Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bagcha^af .^ ^<iPETITION< UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION p" OF^NDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF M^NDAMUS, CERTIORARI QUO WARRANTO. XI-HC-22 OT^T^T f<vl[<=h ^^ $^^i<=h ^Rd •^sss ^Nid*i. ^•y4i^ ^wy an^r ^S^K Twte-^f4-:h^4A^ 2o» WWTT^^Ilch 'f^Ri^r' sn^T^n^R^rft^ 15-9-2004 Shri A.N.Bhakta, < Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, respondents No.1 to4. None for respondent No.5. Heard both the counsei. The petitioner has preferred of the Constitution of India, correctness of the resotution daN Sabha, whereby the Gram Sabha from the post of Panchayat Karml 28.4.2003 passed by the Sub Divi^ objections fiied by the petitioner aga| The case ofthe petitioner is| Karmi in the Gram Panchayat: he was working as Panchayat resolved to remove the petitioner| Aggrieved by the said order, the Officer (Revenue), Tehsit: 28.4.2003 the petitioner's Divisionai Officer. Further case of the petition< passed against him in the absenci show cause notice, charge sheet, given to the petitioner. and the prir been prayed thatthe impugned orde counsei forjthe petitioner. Govt. Advocate for the State/ Gharghc^a cbHid<lflv1 ^l^df ^fe^t <fa^i< '^^Tf^FT^n^r this writ petition under Artjcie 226/227 quejstjontng the legajity, propriefy and |d 16,2,2003 passed by the Gram laglaecjded to remove the petitioner (Seeretary) and also the order dated ^ionaf Officer, Revenue.whereby the jnstthe Gram Sabha were rejected. |that he_was appointed as Panchayat Baglchawfton 26.10.1995 ancj since then HIarmi. However, the Gram Sabha from the said post on 16.2.2003. jsetitjoner moved the Sub DMsionai However, vide impugned order Ipetition was rejected by the Sub ^r is that the order of removal was ^ of fulS quorum, without giving any |no opportunity of bejng heard was lciple of justice was violated. !t has bequashed. ^— — <^, ST XI-HC-22 ^TT^T'^T R-li<=h 3TI^T ^^icr> <il^a -T5T ^HM'4. ^y4!^, r<!«flW1< s^?r ^^R T^te-^-^^4^ '^^r" WR^F^Wch 200 3?TT^T'p<TT^R:^TfN tr Return has been filed on misconduct of the petitioner has b<^( resoiution of the Gram Sabha was is further denied that the principlej and no opportunity of hearing was g| The majn contention of the | that the petitloner was removed envisaged in Chhattisgarh Panchshf Rutes, 1999 (hereinafter referred t^ the petjtioner was working as Pan|; imposjng major penalty has been iaj Sub-rule (1) of Ruie 7 says that 'Wo o/cfer, fmposing on a any of the penaftles specifie^ shali be passedexcept after \ may be, In the msnner hereit\ Sub-rute (2) of Rule 7 envisages thaf "When an order for formal discip/inary aiftfwnty shalf basls of Qllegations and sh^ afong with thestatementoft!^ the Panchayat Service and a^ such tlme as may be defence and aiso to stste person." ^Nfo^ .^JNdf '^f^ff <Ki^i< i^ a?rf^FT 3n^r; befjiaif of respondents No.1 to 4 jn which b<^en hjghiighted. It js denjed that the lot passed by a required quorum. It of natura! justice has been violated ^en to the petitioner. iearned eounsel for the petitioner is wfhout foliowing the procedure as ^at Service (Discipline and Appeal) as 'the Rules, 1999'). Admittecily, ;hayat Karml and the proeedure for |d down tn Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999. m^piber of the Panchayat Service, in ciause (iv) to (via) ofmfe 5 fonnal inqulry is hefd as fsr as ^after piQvided." snquiry has been made, the ^ame De^nite charges on the \1! communicate such charges, offfi^e affegations, fo the memberof i4?o fsqulw him to submit; within sp^pified a written statement of wh^ther he desifas to be heard in C(, ^ |-C;' 1 XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^T f^ri^^n^r $t>^i^ ^f^a Barve/Soma u- ^t, f T ^s-^ r<(i^i<n^ ?PT, ^ftOT?, fa<ni^y 3ff^T XTSra? wq^mFW^'"*'**"*""**"""""*"**"'*"'^^ 200 1^8?' 3'n^r'^n^iT'Hf^T -J- Sub-Ruies (3). (4), (5). (6), <=fti^(<n^1^ TTR^ff "^ f^^ iPn^K ( ^T3Tf^R3?n^r (7). (8), (9), (10) and (11) of Rule 7 further prescribe the procedure to fcje followed before imposing any major penalty specified jn ciause (iv) to (vi|a). It is an admi'tted position th^t no enquiry was conductedagainst the petitioner before removjng him from the post of Panchayat Karmjas per Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999. Th^refore, on this ground, the impugned order dated 16.2.2003 (Annexure P-2) i.e. the decision of the Gram Sabha to remove the petitioner fr|5m the post of Panchayat Karmi is iiable to be quashed. Sn the circumstanees,the inr<pugned order is quashed. However, It is made ciear that the respondenjts are not preciuded from conducting fresh enquiry on the misconduct of|he petEtioner. With the above observatioil disposedx^-. Parties are entitled for certifi^d copy ofthis order. is and dlrectjon, the petition stands 8d/- L.C.Bbadoo Judge [Tft^'^R "fS^