HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 500 of 200; li^iijir* i- Slru'gSlfS1'' Petitioner: Nathu Mahaaaad, aged about 25 years, S/o Bhau Mahauaitd by Caste Gada, resident of ViUage Ghdyapaiii, Post- Hafhibahara, Tehsil and District-Mahasamund, Ex Panchayat Kat-uii and Secretary Graiii Panchayat Hafhibahara, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus Respondents: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throiigh Secretary Departmeat of Paachayat Ministiy of Pauchayat and Rural Developnient, Secretanat at Raipiir. 2. The CoUector, Mahasamund. 3. The Sub Divisional OfBcer, Revenue, Mahasamund 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bagbahara, District-Mahasamuiid (C.G.) 5, The Gram Panchayat, Hafhibaliara, Block Bagbahara, Distnct- Mahasaniund (C.G.) Single Bench; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri Heiaatit Kesharwani, Counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Shailendra Shukla, Counsel for the Respondeut No. 4. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/ State. ORAL ORDER (17th Januaiy, 2006) The foUowing order ofthe Coirrt was passed by Satish K. Agaihotri, J. 1. The petitiouer was appointed as Panchayat Karnii on 20. 11,1995. Thereafter according to the petitioner he was appointed as Panchayat Secretary, though the petitioner has not ffled aay docuinent indicating fhat fhe petitioner was appouited as Paachayat Secretar}r, The petitioner has iUed fhis petition on the ground that fhe petitioner's service was renioved by order dated 4.03.2002 (Annexure P-5) wifhout giving show cause notice aad withoiit holditig proper enqniry as conteinplated under Rule 7 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal), Rules, 1999. 2. The respondents had ffled fheir reply. In tiie reply, aniiexed as Aunexure R-l, is fhe letter addressed to Sarpaach, Grani Panchayat, Hathibaliara, by Chief Executive Of&cer, Janpad Panchayat, Bagbahara, which clearly states that on enquiiy it was found that fhe petitioner had coinDiitted several irregularities and the enqiiiiy report is asiuexed to the retum, wherein. the petitioner had adniitted his irregularities com.iaitted by him.. 3. Lcanied coiinsel appearing for the petitioner categoricaBy denies that he has m.ade any adinission in fhe enqiuiy report. He further subiaits that no enquiry was held and he was not given aay notice. The petition involves disputed question of facts which cannot be decided in this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, However the petitioner is granted llberty to take appropriate reinedy, ifso, advised. 4. Accordingly fhe petition is disinissed. No order as to costs. "•s^». Anin ' .