\i (M WRIT PETITION No. L8®Z OF 2005 PETITIONER: Deepak Diwan Ag€d About— 35 Years, Occupation—Ex—Secretaly Of Gram Panchayat Kothan', Janpad Kothari, Panchayat Thesil— Kartala, Kartala, R/o— Village— Distt. Korba(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT (Sl: / 1. State of Chhattisgarh § Through it’s Secmtary ”@fN D.K.s. Department Bhawan of Panchayat Raipur (C.G.) n!” / 2. Collector Distt. Korba (C.G.} /3. Sub Divisional Officer (Reven ue/ Prescribed Officer Panchayat) Distt. Korba (C.G.) /4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Kartala, Distt. Korba (CG) / 5 Raj Kumar Kurrey, . ;—D1‘le iyears, Ram Occupation—Secretary Kurrey, Aged About- Of \ i \ l ,iifn fg‘chayat Panchayat Kama1a, Kothan‘, R/o— Village- Janpad L Fan, Thesil- Kartala, Distt. MANDAMUS INDIA WRIT PEuuUN FOR ISSUANCE z CERTIORARI UNDER OF ARTICLE AN ETC. APPROPRIATE 226i227 OR DIRECTION OF WRIT THE IN CONSTITUTION ( THE ORDER NATURE IN THE OF OF LIKE NATURE. N IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR gll‘IQW QEwga r), wa(c.G. ‘7 ‘ ‘ «aw A qafzévi A ,1 If E7 HIGH COURT O CHHAmSGAkH AT BILASPUR Wri'f Pe‘ri‘rion No. 1802 of 2005 Pem‘ioner i San-rash Das Diwan Versus Responden'rs : Sfa're of Chha‘rfisgarh & o+hers Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Jus+ice safish K. Agnihotri.‘ \ Shri Vinay Pandey, counsel for The Petitioner. Shri V.V.5. Moorfhy, Dy. Advocafe €vene‘ra! wifh Shri Safish Eupfa, Dy. Govt AdvocuTe for 1'he responden‘rs No. 1 'ro 3/5Ta1’e. 5hri CR. Suhu, counsei for fhe respondent No. 6. ORDER (Passed on 71+! 5ep+ember, 2006) The pe'fi-Honer'wus appoin‘red as Panchaya'r Karmi/Secrefary by order da1'ed 1.11.1995 of he Gram Panchayqf, Kofhari, Disfricf Korba. Service of fhe pe-H‘l'ioner was ferminafed from fhe posf of Panchoyaf Karmi/Secrefary by order dafed 21.3.2005 (Annexure P/1) passed by The respondenf No. 6 on fhe basis resolu-Hon passed in fhe mee‘ring by fhe 6mm Sabha. AdmiHediy, fhe pe'fifioner was nof served any show cause nofice or no enquiry was held as envisaged in Rule 7 of 'ihe Modhyo Prodesh Panchayaf Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for shm 'The Rules, 19996JI+ is furrher submi‘Hed fhof before imposing major penal'l'ies as specified 9% in clause (iv) f0 (via) of rule 5, 'rhe procedure in Rule 7 of “the Rules, 1999, has no? been followed. The Naib Tahsildur, who held 'l'he preliminary enquiry, by his repor'r dafed 14.7.2005 (Annexure R/3) found fhaf fhere was no nofice 1'0 The pe‘ii‘fioner and no enquiry was held under Sec‘l'ion 6 (1) of fhe Madhyu Prodesh Panchayoj Raj Avam Gram Swamj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for shori' 'The Rules 1993'). In fhe presen'l' case, service of fhe pe‘ii‘rioner has been fermina‘l‘ed wi‘rhou'f following sfa'rui'ory procedure as prescribed in Rule 7 of 1'he Rules 1999. Thus. fhe order is bad being comrary +0 'I’he provisions of The Rules, 1999. Accordingly, The order dafed 21.3.2005 (Annexure P/1) passed by 1'he 6mm Panchayai', Ko+hari is quashed and fhe pefil’ioner is en'l'i'l’led 'l'o all The benefiTs, pecuniary and oTherwise. IT is made clear ThaT This order will noT come in The way of The RespondenT/Gram PanchayaT or any oTher respondent as The case may be, from iniTiaTing The disciplinary acTion againsTrThe 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. ' Sd/~ Bablu garish K. Agnihot£i 9 Judge s;