HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BELAS?UR WRET PETITION (S) No. 1620 of 2009 PETITI ONER RESPONDENTS 3. Ggéta Gupta Aged about 29 years, D/o Amar Dev Gupta, Shiksha Karmi Gracie 1H, Pn‘ma1y School Nawadih, ViHags Navadih, Post Tatapax1i DiStm’ct Surguja ChhaitiSgarh, VERSUS :1. State of Chhattisgarh through Th€ Sacrctauy, Depaxtment of Pa11chayat <31, Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2, The Collectoz; Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh, The Chief Executive Officer’ Zila Panchayat Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh. The Chief Executive Omcer, Jarxpad Panchayat Bah‘ampur, Disttict Sm‘guja (Ambikapur) Chhatu'sgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. égihotri, J. Shn‘ Amrito Das, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate 0r the State] respondeat No. 1 and 2. Shri Pankaj ShrivaStava, Advocate for the reepondeat No. 4. QREER {9RAL§ (Paseed/on 30th day of Julv, 2009) / Heard learned counSel appearing for the palties. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4/ Chief Executive Officer, fairly Submit that the issue mvolved in this case asto whether the petitiorier, who is Shiksha Karim, has been aii'orded an opportunity of hearing before termination from her post, came into consideration before this Court in the matter of Kut Punam and wg > (7Q? others v. Staie of Chhattisgarh Othersl. Learned counsel further $ubmits that since no proper opportunity was aiforded to the petitionsr beforé termination, The authorities shall take appropriate steps in terms of the judgment and order passed in Ku. Punam {supra}, before passing any order. The concerned authorities Wm try to complete the whole exercise Within a period of three weeks. The Chief Executive Officer has passed the impugned order of removal, In View of foregoing, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. Having regard to the facts situation of the case and the judgment assed in the matter of Ku. Pumm (supra), the impugned removal order dated 28.02.2009 (Annexure P/ l) is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents/ authorih'es to take appropriate steps [in accordance with law. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed o£ ' Sdl- i \é Satish K. Agmhotn Judge r l 2003 (2) cent 3&6 p /