C? IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION NO. 937/2004 PETITIONER : Ramlal Sahu, S/o Shri Nanki Ram Sahu, aged about 39 years, Panchayat Karmi/Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Barielly, R/o Barielly, Tahsil/Janpad Panchayat, Kasdol, Vikash‘ Khand Kasdol, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. VERSUS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Department of p1 Panchayat & Rural ,Development, D.K.S. Building Raipur (C.G.). 2. Joint Director, Panchayat Avam Samaj Kalyan, Raipur (C.G.). 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Baioda Bazar, Tahsil Baioda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 4. Sub Divisional Officer, Bhilaigarh, Tahsii Bhilaigrh, Distt. ‘Raipur (C.G.)! 5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kasdol, Tahsii Kasdoi, District Raipur (C.G.). 6. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bariely, Vikash Khan£dr$~ Kasdol, District Raipur (C.G.). 7. Up—Sarpanch, Punee Ram Sahu, Gram Panchayat Barielly, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). warm {53%) W aim-a; M..¢§.Q,..g§.:.ki§. H W200 v Shri Bhasknr Pyusi, cou szl for ‘rha petifioner. Shri Akhii Agruwal, P e‘ Lawyer for 'rhe Shh/responden'rs No.1 to 4. Sin-i CR. Sohu, couneei or responden‘fs No.6 and 'r’. None present on beha! of responders? No.45 in spife of sarvice. No return has been fife on behaif of responden‘rs. As agreed 'ro by iear d counsei for fine par‘ries, ‘Hw mamr is being d§sposed of finally. The case of fhe pefi‘ri ner is 'rhc'r fhe pe'ri'rioner was appointed as Panchnyn'f Karmi infhe 1994 and he was working as Panchayat Knrmi (Secretary) cf 6mm anchayaf, Bariciiy, Vikas Khmd Kcsdol frcm fhe year 1994-95. Reg odnen? No!) rewived a complain? from respondenf No.72 Responds No.7 had filed tho said complaint Responden‘r No.5 San? a { informafion, buf responden‘r 1'0 responden‘r No.6 for ge‘Hing o convened a mee'i'ing of The Gram Sobho wimouf giving show cause notice To The po'ri'rioner and resalufion was passe& on 3~2 03 for removal of inc pe‘rifioner from *he pas? of Panchnyaf Karmi ( cre'rary). I hove heard ieamed co nsei for The parfies. ' /\ ‘ y a ‘ r . 0 mamm ammsmmiav mmw anéw WWW#wW aawaném 12—5—2005 On a merm‘on being m , +he case is mken up for hearing. XLHC—78 m mqi$ E200 mammafm) anéwm W3? mmmww mm§%m ammésmitn'm .wgp. a$Wanéa If is admi‘H'ed posifion Thu? being Panchnya'f Karmi services of X, the pefi'rioner are governed by Ponchnyo1' Service (Diséip5ine and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinaf r referred to as fha Rules, 1999). Sub- rule (3) of Rule 1 of Par+- envisages +ha1' ‘Excep'r aé ofherwise provided by or under ‘rhese ru s, They appiy To a“ persons employed in connection wi1'h the affairs of Zih Pmchayafs, Junpad Panchayafs md me 6mm Panchayats and dismarging the functions of Ziia Pundmya‘r, Janpad Panchaya'r and 6mm i’anchayat‘ Ruie 5 of fhe Ruies, 1999 prescribes pennhies and sub-rule (b) of Ruie 5 prescribes major pennh'ies. Rule 7 prescribes procedure fer imposing major pemities and according ‘ro which ‘No order, imposing on a member of the ?nnchaya+ Service, any of 'Hoe‘ pennifies specified in ciause (iv) in (via) of rule 5 shall be passed ex pf after a formal inquiry is held as for as may be, in *lne manner he mf'l'er provided.’ 5ub~rule (2) envisages ‘rha'l' ‘When an order of form l inquiry has been mode, me disciplinary authori'ly shall frame Defini‘l‘e charges on The basis of allegations and /‘” shall communicate such charges, alongwi'ih fhe s'fa‘i'emenf of +he allegaiions, ‘ro The member of The Panchaya'r Service'and also require him To submiT wiThin such Time as may be specified a wriTTen sTaTemenT of defence’ond aliio To sTaTe whe‘iher he desires 10 be - heard in person.’ As per Sub-rule (4) The; PanchayaT Kari-hi will be ea .k allowed To file wriTTen sTaTemeM of defence and Thedisciplinary .. /‘)h . 4 NA; ’ r XI—HC'78 WWW m mm$ .................................... E200 31mW (WE) metmm 32H snémmim mmmanw g 3 fa WW€%W' $Wanéar . au'rhori'ry is requimd fa nomina‘re my person +0 present We case in are 'rhe Enquiry Officer and if me be haard, Then hé shall be haurd and affer enquiry, fine Enquiry cer is required +0 submif his raporf as per sub-ruies U), (8)‘and ).‘ As per sub-ruie (10) The discipiinar‘y au‘rhorify is required #0 c sider #he mpresenfa'rion mad: by me ?anchayc1' Karmi and fhen +0 ecide +he pariah-y. If is admmed posi on fha’r in this case nc enquiry was insiiiu-fad and conduct-ad 1- fhe pe'rifiomr'under fhe hulasg 1999. He was simply removed, from nae pas? of Panchaya'i Karmi on me basis of ihe resoiui'icn passed by e 6mm Sabhq which is family confrqry +0 fhe above miles, 1999 in refore, order of ransom! AnnexurevP/l is . iiabie To be quashed on fhis ore only In ihe resuii' fine w if pe‘iman is aiinwed and ‘ihe Impugned order- is quashad Howev respondenis are noi precluded» from ‘ conducting fresh enquiryfo misconduct of file peiiiianer. Burva b suppor? of *he charges Panchayqf Knrmi deserv‘as In View of fhis order, W.P. No. 844/2004 sfands disposed of. Porfies are enfii'led fo certified copy of 'rhis order. Sdl— L.C. Bhadoo s Judge we W f i s e , e .