jc [af/ . ( g ) IN THE H' r Sin Bemh W gm H PETITIONER rnachand Sau, age 33 years, S/o Jeevardhan Sahu, resident of village and Post Lukapara, Block Baamkela District Raigarh(CG) :lw / RESPONDE 1. State of Chhattisgarh NTS thru Secretary Department o Panchayat and Social Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bha’a-n, a‘ipur (CG) rescribed Officer & Dy Director, anchayat and Social Welfare, Raigarh (CG) Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sub Division - Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) C e hief Executive Officr, Janpad Panchayat Baramkela,Distt.Raigarh , a (CG) M.P. D Naik, Assistant evelopment Extension Officer, Janpad Panchayat — Baramkel Distt. Raigarh (CG) 6. Raghuveer Pradhan, Asst. Gram Panchayat Officer , Janpad Panchayat Baramkela, Distt.Raigarh (CG) 0h ONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION S NO. OF 2009 u h r VERSUS f w ‘R P P ,, WRIT PETITION UNDER ART CLE 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 4. J HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAIéH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4147 of 2009 Petitioner Purnachand Sahu Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 8L others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. o R D E R (Oral) (Passed on this 4th day of January, 2010) Heard. 1. The present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 207.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Raigarh, whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat ; Lukapara, Janpad Panchayat — Baramkela, District — Raigarh. 2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi and thereafter he was declared as Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Lukapara by order dated 12.9.1995. The petitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi/Secretary on the basis of the order dated 19.9.2005, passed'by the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Raigarh. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Director, Panchayat, which was dismissed by order dated 14.2.2007. 3. Thereagainst, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (S) No. 2368/2007 (Purnachand Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8L others) challenging the afore—stated orders dated 19.9.2005 and 14.2.2007. This Court, having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration that the provisions , of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panch)ayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short ‘the Rules 1999’), which provides elaborate procedure for imposition of major penalties, was not followed, allowed the writ petition by order dated 17th April, 2009 (Annexure P/2). However, liberty was given to the respondents to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner for the alleged misconduct committed by him, if so advised, in accordance with law and in terms of the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of removal dated 20.7.2009 (Annexure P/ 1) has been passed on the basis of the exercise undertaken by the respondents prior to the period of passing of the order dated 17th April, 2009, by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2368/2007. No further steps were taken by the respondents, as provided under the statutory provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. Learned counsel would submit that since the mandatory, statutory provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 were not complied with before removing the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi, thus the impugned order dated 20.7.2009 was illegal and bad on the ground that no proper enquiry was held. In support of his submissions learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. State of C.G. 86 othersl, which was referred approvingly in Anjordas Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 85 othersz . Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly admits that the elaborate provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 have not been followed before passing the impugned order, as no definite charges were framed, no charge sheet was served, no enquiry officer and presenting officer were appointed and no proper enquiry was held. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. {2006(2) c G L J 186} {2008 (111) MPJR CG 110} {M Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 pr6vides for procedure before terminating services of a member of Panchayat. In the instant case, it is apparent that some notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was given opportunity to submit his reply but thereafter no enquiry was held. Thus, admittedly, the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 were not followed. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the pleadings and document appended thereto, it is evident that the impugned termination order was passed without following the proper statutory and mandatory 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 major penalty. 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. 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 of India. The order was in fact penal in nature, with civil consequences and as such compliance of the elaborate provisions, as enshrined in Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 was mandatory in the present case. (See the case of Dhaluram Kosaria and Anjordas (supra) }. 10. In View of the foregoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.7.2009 (Annexure P/ 1) is set aside. No order asto costs. Thakur t . Sd/— j Satish K. Agnihotri Judge