‘ EHGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ’ WRIT PETITION N0. 677 of 2004 PETITIONER Ashwani Kumar Khande Son of Amritla Khande, aged about 25 years, Panchayat Karmi (Secretary) Gram Panchayat Vichalpur, Vikas Khand Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) . Director, Department of Panchayat, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. . Additional Collector, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. . Sub Divisional Officer, Prescribed Authority under Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, t Mungeli, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Gram Panchayat Vicharpur, Vikas Khand Mungeli, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. . Daduram Gabel son of Govind Prasad Gabel, Gram’ Panchayat Tahsil Mungeli, District . Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \ SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Smt. Renu Kochar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 4. Shri Vilnlesh Bajpai, Advocate for the respondent No. 5 and 6. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 26 day of June, 2009) Heard. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 3 l .l2.2003 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Collector, Bilaspur, order dated 27.01.2003 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mungeli, and the order dated 30.01.2002 (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 5 i.e.‘ the Grain Panchayat, Vicharpur, terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary. The facts, in nutshell, are that thepetitionerwas working as Secretary of the Grain Panchayat, Vicharpur. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for his alleged misconduct. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice. The reply, on being found unsatisfactory, the respondent No. 5 vide its — resolution dated 29.09.2001 resolved to remove the petitioner from the post of,Panchayat Secretary. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.01.2002 (Annexure P/l), the petitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat l Secretary/Panchayat Karmi. Against the said termination order, the petitioner ) l W preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 4, which was dismissed Vide order dated 271.2003 (Annexure P/6). Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent No. 3 which was also dismissed Vide order dated 31.12.2003 (Annexure P/7). / 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no charge-sheet has been issued and no enquiry has been conducted before the impugned order dated 31.01.2002 (Annexure P/l) was passed, without complying with the mandatory provisions of Rule 7.0f the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, (for short ‘the Rules, 1999’). Per contra, Shri Shashank Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents 1 to 4 submits that admittedly, no enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 was conducted, however, the petitioner was served with a show-cause—notice which was duly replied by the petitioner. Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 and 6 pleads no instructions. The questionrof lawinvolved in this case is asto whether the petitioner, who was declared as Panchayat Secretary can be removed from the post without complying 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 was removed without supplying the charge-sheet and without conducting any enquiry. It is well-settled principle of law as enshrined in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 that if therGram 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 termination order has not complied with the provisions ofRule 7 of the Rules, 1999. This Court, in Dhaluram Kosarz‘a v. State of CG and others], observed as under: “l9. It 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 l and denial of the principles of natural justice. 1t amounts to infraction of not 'Only the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 but the provisions of 1 2006 (2) CGLJ 186 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.” Ram v. Slate of CG and 0thers2, this Court observed as Further, in Beegam 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 ,u 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 Kotwar on 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 29.62000 (Annexure R/S), 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)” 10. Non-compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of principles of natural justice tantamounts to infraction of not only the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 but the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of (evil) consequences, cannot be passed without hold India also. The order of removal being penal in nature, visiting with civil ing enquiry in accordance with the elaborate provisions, as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. ll. It is thus clear that the respondents have not followed the statutory provisions of law before passing the impugned order, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.12.2003 (Annexure P/7) passed by respondent No. 3, order dated 27.01.2003 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent No. 4, and the order dated 30.01.2002 (Annexure P/l) passed by respondent No. 5, are quashed. No l 12. In View of the foregoing, order asto costs. 1 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge l "7 ———————’—"‘—‘ I {w WWW: W H W WWW 2 2006 LT (CG) 41