^;'';;'s»a& 1K ^ ^ %.^/ X-..'•;:"-,,-£?'' 7^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIStSARH AT BU-ASPUR Writ Petition No. 3234 of 2006 Petitioner ftespondents Versus :1. 2. 3. 4. Chondra Bhonu Rathia S/o. AAanbodh Ram Rathki, oged ofcout 40 years, PanchayaT Karmi Cum Secretary, &rom Pandiayat Devgarh, Block - Tamnar, Tehsi! - Sharghoda, Disn. Raigarh (C.e.) State of Chhatt-isyirh TTirouigh : 5ecreTary, PanchayaiT d 5ociat Welfare D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.e.) Sirector, Panchayat and Social Weifore D.K.S. BhawaR Raipur C.e. Oeputy birector Ponchaya+ cmd Social Vi/eifare, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (C.6.) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Pandiayat, Tamnar, Tahsil - Sharghoda, Sistt. Raigarh (C.S.) Sarpesridi, Sra'n PcBichayat Deogarh, Bfock-Tamnor, Tcihsil - Sharghoda, &istt. Raigarh (C.6.) Sir^ie Bench: Hon'ble hhr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. AAr. K. N. Nande,counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. Sanjffy- 5. Agrawa!, ©ovt.Advocate for the respondents No. 1,2 and 3. None appears for +he respondents No. 4 and 5. OR&Eft yassed on this i2th doy of ^prit, 2007) 1. The petitioner vms oppointed as Panchayat Karmi/Secretar/ in the Gr-WFR Ponehor/at - CSevgnrh, Bloek- Tamnar, Tehsit - Sharghoda, Disirict- Raigarh. 2. The petitioner haa filed this petition impugning -the order dated 11.5.2006 (Annexure P/l) passed by the (S^iuty- Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare. Raigarh, whereby the notification issued under Section 69(1) of the <3ihaUisyirh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, notifying the petitioner-Panchayat Karmi to act as Secretar/ of the Pcmchayat, has been canceiled. Consequently vide order dated 19.5.2006 (Annexure P/2), issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Jonpad Panchayat, Tamnar, the charge of the Secretar^ of the Gram Panchayat - Devgarh, Block- Tamnar, Distriet- Raigarh, was handed over to one Shri Kshirsagar Pctel, Jarekela as adolitional assignment. A Division Beneh of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1656 of 2004 (Roophl Nayak Vs, The State of Chhattisgarh & o-thers) has held that removal of n Secretap/ from -riie post of 6ram Pcinehay-ot, initiatiy appointed os Ponchoyoit Karmi would be govemed by the provisions of AAodhya Pradesh Pcu'ichoiyat Service (Discipline ond Appeat) Ruies, 1999 (for diori- 'The Rules, 1999'). Withdrawa! of charge of the post of Secretary from the petitioner, being Panchayat Kca'mi, tontamounts to reduetion in rank and since 'reduetion in ronk is a major penafty in -terms of Ruie 5 (b) (iv) of the Rutes, 1999, it ccuinot bs imposed witiiout conducting a regufar depnrtmental enquiry as uivisaged under Rufc 7 of -rtie Ruies, 1999. 4. It is admitt'ed case that no enquiry woiS conducted before passing the impugnee! order dated 11.5.2006 (Annexure P/l). The impugned action of the respondents tantamounts to removal which is a major penaft/ ond the same cannot be imposec! without conducting are9ular enquiry. 5. For -the aforesaid reasons, -this petition is allowed and the'impugned order dated 11.5.2006 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to all +he benefits, pecuniary and otherwise. 6. It is mode cleoT that this order will not come in the way of the Respondent/©ramPanchayat or c»iyother respondent, as the case may be, from initiating the diseipiinary action against the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with law and in terms of the procedura prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. 7. In -Hie facts omd circumstonces of the case, the parties diaf! bear their own costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Bablu ».-