x ® @ .vézvwx‘»: C F, (g3 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.53 17612008 PETITIONER : /' Shanker Lal Lahrey S/o. Shri Firat Ram Lahre, aged about 4O years, (Secretary of Gram Panchayat Kataud), .a“; W R/o. Village : Kataud, Tahsil 19 I? V“ ' ”3 Whvg.‘g\ x0 \ x} ‘ V : Nawagarh, District G\ Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). VERSUS M‘ 1 Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Janjgir— Champa (C.G.) The Additional Collector, Janjgir—Champa (C.G.). Sub Divisionai Officer, (Revenue), Janjgir, District : Janjgir—Champa (C.G.). RESPONDENTS 1. ‘ State ,of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat, & Social Welfare w 7 ¥ r - ‘vy AFK 1 O\C QM IGH COURT-OF CHHIXYTESGARH AT BELASPUR H ‘ WRIT PETITION gS) No. 5370 ‘0f2008 F‘ETITIONER : Shankar Lal Lainey. VERSUS RESFONDENTS : State of‘Clmattisgarh & ()therg. \VRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF lNDiA SB: Eion’ hie Sh nihotri. J. ri A atish J4 Presem: S‘m‘i Pushpendra Patel, Advocate for tha petitioner. Shri Shashank Thaim-t, Panel Lawyer for the Statelrespondem Shri Pawan Sin‘ivas’mva, Advocate for the respondent No. 5. N0. 1 to 4. 0Ri)ER 1 GRAL i (Possed on 28 ‘ day of Aprii, 20 10) Challenge m mis petition is to the order dated 07.07.2008 (Almexure P/ 1) passed by the Additional Collector. Janjgh’—Champa in Appeal Case Not 46/A-89(15)/06-07. wherein the appeal prefen‘ed by the respomient No. 6, against the order’ dated 27.04.2G07 (Amexure P/2) pasged by the Sub Divisional Officer, in Revenue Case No. Ol/A-89(15)/2006-O7, has been allowed on the gound that‘the i‘eSpOndent Not 4 i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer, has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the Gram Panchayat. 2. The indisputablefacts. in nutshell, are that the petitioner was notified as Panchayat Secretary on 10.12.199§ (Annexure P/S) by the Coileetor (Panehayat Branch) Janjgir-Champa. Thereaiter, the petitioner joined on the post of Panehayat Secretary (Pancliayat Kanni) in Gram Panohayat Kataud, District Jarxjgir Champa. .The (31am Pamhayat, Kataud, removed the petitioner by way of resolution passed by on 12.08.2G06 \ S K. (Axmexure PM) on the allegation of certain inegularities conmlitted by the petitioner and the order of removal was passed 031 21.08.2006 (Annexure P/3) by the Sarpanch. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the said order before the Sub Divisional Officer, Janjgir-Champa under the provisions of Rule 3(d) of the Chhattlsgarh Panehayat Raj (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short ‘z‘he Rttles, 1995’). The Sub Divisional Officer, by order dated 27.04.2007 (Annexure P/2) allowed the appeal of the petitioner holding that the statutory procedure as prescribed under Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short ‘the Rules, 1999), was not complied with. Thereagainst. the respondent No. 6, who happens to be Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Janjgir Champa, who in turn allowed the appeal holding that the Sub Divisional Olficer has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the Sarpanch ofa Gram Panchayat. 3. Shri Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Rules, 1995 provides that an appeal is maintainable to the Sub a“ Divisional Officer against any order passed by the Grain Panchayat, which is evident from the table under sub-rule (d) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1995. 4. On the other hand, Shri Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, without rebutting the averments of the petitioner that the order passed by the Additional Collector is illegal and deserves to be quashed, submits that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner but the petitioner has failed to respond to the same and as such, necessary /// e‘ ill " “I enquily as contempiated under Rule 7 of the Ruies, 1999 was no“: conducted. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that Rules 1995 was made by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 95 read with section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Rule 3 of the Rules, 1995 dearly provides that an appeal against the order passed by the Gram Panchayat is maintainable to the Sub Divisional Offleer on the first instance. There is no dispute that the impugned order of removal was passed by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The Additional Collector, Janjgir Chantpa, Without applying his mind and looking into the provisions of law, has erred in holding that the appeal before the Sub Divisional Ohicer was not maintainable. Thus, the impugned order dated 07.07.2008 (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 3 is quashed. Consequently, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Oiticer, Janjgir Champa, dated 27.04.2007 (Annexure Pf2) is affirmed. 7. The writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. ‘ 3d]. . pSatish K. Agnihotri 1‘ , : I ' I Judge