~w ijl c ^ -... ^.^-r-m^W ©?s"^1F'l.ltW^9~i- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. ^~{\0 OF 2005 PETITIONER: .*fr- l»\"^y~ z ..••••^8'7 «^' ^^5*' .^' "\£T^ '^^ ^ / ^' ../' ^r. y ....4^ ^ Jalim Singh, S/o-Purshottam Lal Aged about 30 years, R/o Village Gram Panchayat Odkakan, Block Bilaigarh, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) ^' ^x'> f'^'" y VERSUS ^" .^ RE8PONDENT (S): / 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through it?s Secretary Department of Panchayat D.K.8. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G) / 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) (Prescribed Authority) Block- Bilaigarh, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) / 4. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Odkakan, Block Bilaigarh, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) •^ / WRnLPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN_THE NATURE QF MANDAMUS / CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION / ORDER IN J'HE LIKE NATURE. HI^H COURT OF CHHATTISSARH AT BILASPUR Slngl®Bench: Hon'bie AAr. Justice Satjsh K. ^gnihotri. W. P. No. 4710 of 2005 Petitioner Jalim Singh Versus Respondent State of Chhattisgarh & others Shri Vinay Pandey, cbunsel for the petitioner< Shri V,V.S. Moorthy, Dy. Advocate Seneral with Shri Satish Supta, Dy, <yoyt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1, 3 and 4/State< Shri Sandeep bubey, counsei for the respondent No. 2. None Gppears for the respondent No, 4. ORDER (Passed on 7th September, 2006) 1, The petitioner was appointed a$ Panchayat Karmi/Secretary by order dated 9.11-1995 (Annexure P/l) of the (5ram Panchayat, OdakGkan, District Raipur. 2. Service of the petitioner WGS terminated from the post of Panchayat Karmi/Secretary by order dated 19<4.2005 (Annexure P/4) passed by th©respondent No, 4 on the basis of resoiutlon passed in the meeting of the Gram Sabha 3. Being aggrieyed, the petitioner made a representation before the competent authority, but same was not considered, 4. The petitioner filed an oippeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh. The Sub bivisional Officer, by order dated 16.5.2005 (Annexure P/l), stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 19.4,2005 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent No. 4, The Sub bivisiona! Officer/respondent No. 3 ultimately dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on 30.8.2005 (Annexure P/8). 5. The petitioner has filed ths's petition impugning the order dated 19.4.2005 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Gram Sabha and order dated 30.8.2005 (Annexure P/8) passed by the respondent No. 3 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order of removal passed by l+ie ©ramPdnchoyat approved by the Gram Sabha. 6. The petitioner has filed this petition challengmg the impugned orders on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded on opportunity of hearing and no enquiry wois held as envisa9ed in Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeol) Rules, 1999 (for short 'The Rules, 1999'). It is further submitted that before imposing major penaltjes as specified in clause (iv) to (via) of rule 5, the procedure in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, has not been followed. Hence, the removal order is bad as major penalty in terms of Rule 5 (b) (vi) of the Rules, cannot be imposed Bablu without conducting a regular departmental enquiry as prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules. 1999. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 19.4.2005 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Gram Panchayat, Odkakdn and order dated 30.8.2005 (Annexure P/8) passed by the 5ub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh are quashed and the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits, pecuni'ary and otherwise. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the Respondent/^ram Panchayat or <sny other respondent, as the coise may be, from initiating the disciplinary action against 1fie petitioner for the al{e9ed misconduct committed by him, if so advised, in accordance with law and in terms of the pro<^dure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. _^-—— Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge