("rm ‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CE-IA‘I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR. mp. No. 115--9 /2002. PET ITI ONER Jailal Ram s/o Pancham Ram, aged about 23 years, r/o ‘ Village Sapkara, Tehsil surajpur Distt. Surguja, C.G. ‘ VERSUS. K RESPONDENT S (’ " a?“ Lv‘“ The state of Chhatt‘i’ggarh, through the Secretary, Panchaya- ts, Raipur, C.G. 2. The Gram Panchayat, Sapkara, through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Sapkara, Pogt Dedri, Tehsil surajpur, Distt. Surguja, C.G. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, surajpur, Distt. Surguja, CLG. Collector, $urguja, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, (LG. .w’x M WRIT OF INDIA. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTITWIOE u ‘ r, 7:3 AA #A HIGH {IGURT OF CHHATTISGAQH AT‘BILASPUR Wri'r Pefifion Na. 1259 of 2002 Pefifienar' : Jaihi Ram § Varsus Raspaaden-rs : The S'm’re of Chha‘HiSgarh & ofhers 3;. 5ing!e Bemh: Hsn'b!e Mr. Jusfice $a‘i’isEx K. Agnihm‘ri. ““2 Dr. Sailesh Ahuja, caunsel far fhe Pe+ifionen Ii Shri Sushi! Dubey, @ovemmen? Advcca‘re. for The respondems No. 1, 3 cmd 4_ Dr'. MK. Shukla, 5enior counsg! wifh 5hr§ Diiip Dubey, counse! far fhe responden‘!‘ Ne. 2. \[NK‘ OR&ER (Passed on 301+: August 2006) KL 1‘ The peTMomr was appsinfed as ‘Panchaya‘!’ Karm§ by arder dafed 155.199? (Armaxura P/l) and +herea‘fier fhe pafifioner was appoinfed as fhz Secre‘mry of fhe Gram Pcmchaydf, Sapkam undar Sadion 69 of The Madhya Prwesh Pamhaya‘f Raj Avam 6mm Swamj Adhinjyam, 1993. 2. The pe‘r‘ii'ianer was removed from 1116 p031 0f Paachaya? Karmi/Secremry cm +112 basis 5f #ha resolLi'rian dafed l ‘ _ V 2.10.200G {Amexure P/2) passed by fhe Gram Panchayaf. I 3. Bairag aggrieved, the pe'i’ifimer fiied an appeal before 'fhe Sub Divisioml Officer, Scorajpur. The Sub Divisioi’igl”, . .Mu ,A A A \K‘jr 10 Officer by ordar dafed 19.12.2001 (Amexure W10) dismissed fine appeal on fhe ground of iimHa-risn. 4. The pei‘itioner fur‘iher- preferred an appea! before fhe CaHecfer, Surguja. The Cn!!ec’i'er, Surguja affirmed fhe wder‘ passed by +he Sub Divisicna! Officer, Soomjpur‘ and dismissed 'rhe appeal by erder dead“; 275.2002 (Annexure W11}. 5. The pe‘i’H’ioaer‘ has filed irhis pe’iifion impugning ‘i‘he resciui'idn dcfed 2.10.2000 (Amexure P/E) passed by ‘ihe $mm Panchaya‘h order dafed 19.12.2001 (Annexure P/10) passed by +he Sub Divisiom! Officer, Soorajpur arid order dafed 27.5.2002 (Annexure P/11) passed by 'i'he Coiieci’or, Surguja. ‘ i C 6. 5ervice cpndi'fions of 'i'he pe'i'ii'ioner are gaverned by 11w pravisions 03‘ “rhe Mddhya Pradesh Panchaya'i' Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for shori 'The Rules, 1999'). Rule 7 of fl‘le Rules,1999 provides for pracedure for impasing majar' penaifies as specified in clause (iv) f0 (via) of r'ule 5. ?. In The presen-i case, service af The pefiiiane‘r has been remeved wi‘rheu‘l’ foliowing sidi'ui‘ory procedure as prescribed in Rule 7 of ihe Ruies 1999. Thus, 'i'he arder is bad being cchirary ‘i'd fhe provisions of 'fhe Rules, 1999. H Accordingly, ‘i’he resdwion dafed 2.10.2000 (Annexure P/2) passed by ‘H‘ie (émm Paachaycxf, order dated 19.12.2001 (Amexure P/10) passed by 'i’he Sub Divisiana! Officar, 5Garajpur and owe!“ dafed 27.5.2002 (Annexure P/11) ‘pas3ed by fhé CoHec‘mr, Surguju are quashad and 'l’he pefifioner is eMMed “10 all +he benefifs, gééimiary and asherwise. If is made cigar Thai fhis arder will m)? come in 1 the way of Tha Responden‘l/Gmm Panchuya‘r or any allier respondent as 'H'ie case may be, fram ini'l’ia’fing ‘l'he disciplinary acfion against “ihe pelifioner for ihe alleged miscanduci' commi‘H’ed by him, if sa advised’ in accardanee with law and in Terms af “(he pmcedure prescribed in Rule 7 of +he Rules, 1999. Sd/— I 45am}: K. Agnihotri Judge e; l i f i